Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: What is so faulty about religion...Why is it bad

  1. #1 What is so faulty about religion...Why is it bad 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    i don't see it, i really don't. I know how religion can be used to justify actions, such as the crusades but anything can be used in this fashion, taxes, science, modernity, government, nationalism, ect. But these things are not by nature the cause, they are justifications just like religion. And i believe when you wieght out all the good that religion as a whole has done in the modern era, we truely have a positive outcome. [/i]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: What is so faulty about religion...Why is it bad 
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    i don't see it, i really don't. I know how religion can be used to justify actions, such as the crusades but anything can be used in this fashion, taxes, science, modernity, government, nationalism, ect. But these things are not by nature the cause, they are justifications just like religion. And i believe when you wieght out all the good that religion as a whole has done in the modern era, we truely have a positive outcome. [/i]
    Some people are prejudiced against religion in general, just like some people are prejudiced against a particular religion or denomination.

    In fact, militant secularism (of which we may soon see some examples in this thread) can be as aggressive as militant religious fanatism. Which of course does not mean that all atheists are inherently bad people.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman portcontrol7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    60
    Religion depends upon faulty logic, credulity and ignorance.

    What it boils down to, and why so many securalists are so vehemently opposed to religion, is that it propagates known falsehood (i.e. Man was created by God 6k years ago, Genocide in God's name is righteous) and so openly contradicts itself (Love thy Neighbor, Happy are those that bash the heads of the little children). That religion isn't content to practice it's beliefs alone in silence, but would seek to impose its worldview on all of us is disturbing to many, myself included.

    There are some with a very different approach to faith than evangelicals and fundamentalists, who preach a more open, all encompassing and "moderate" brand of faith, but in my opinion this is ultimately futile because at the root of faith is unreason. I prefer truth to lies anyday.

    Religion teaches people to not think critically and we have learned how disastrous this has been, and continues to be.
    http://sites.google.com/site/portcon...me/bobtiny.JPG

    http://theleapinthedark.blogspot.com

    "The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    It's true that many things can be used as a justification for doing bad things, but religion even more so because of faith; because of promises of martyrdom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    ...because of promises of martyrdom.
    I HATE that word. Dropping a grenade out your arse you noob! :x

    (Lol kidding, some might get that, others might not).
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: What is so faulty about religion...Why is it bad 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    And i believe when you wieght out all the good that religion as a whole has done in the modern era, we truely have a positive outcome. [/i]
    What positive outcome?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    It's true that many things can be used as a justification for doing bad things, but religion even more so because of faith; because of promises of martyrdom.
    Communism justified killing hundreds of millions with the just the promise of a sharing the wealth. Don't let these people fool you with their empty and tired rhetoric, the fact is that when you look at what motivates murder the top of the list isn't any promise martyrdom (LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL sorry could help myself), its money.

    Of course people are a bit less likely to kill themselves for money. But I believe that people still kill themselves for that reason more often than they do for some goofy religion. But in any case, this whole idea is still an example of this dumb logic like: science and technology produced all these bombs and weapons that have killed so many people so science and technology is bad and the world would be better without it.



    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Religion depends upon faulty logic, credulity and ignorance.
    Atheism "depends upon faulty logic, credulity and ignorance."

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    What it boils down to, and why so many securalists are so vehemently opposed to religion, is that it propagates known falsehood (i.e. Man was created by God 6k years ago, Genocide in God's name is righteous) and so openly contradicts itself (Love thy Neighbor, Happy are those that bash the heads of the little children). That religion isn't content to practice it's beliefs alone in silence, but would seek to impose its worldview on all of us is disturbing to many, myself included.
    Atheism propagates known falsehoods (i.e. that atheists never convert to religion and that there are no scientists who are religious) and so openly contradicts itself (saying indoctrination is bad so we have to make sure our children only believe the stuff we know is true). That atheism "isn't content to practice its beliefs alone in silence but would seek to impose its worldview on all of us is disturbing to many, myself included."

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    There are some with a very different approach to faith than evangelicals and fundamentalists, who preach a more open, all encompassing and "moderate" brand of faith, but in my opinion this is ultimately futile because at the root of faith is unreason. I prefer truth to lies anyday.
    There are some with a very different approach to atheism than this new popular atheism for people without substantial skills in critical thought and rationality, but in my opinion the way that that these others remain silent and uncritical of the ignoramuses idiotically blaiming religion for the world's problems and calling for the obliteration of religion shows that the root of atheism is irrational bigotry like anti-semitism. I prefer not only truth to lies but tolerance to bigotry, anyday.


    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Religion teaches people to not think critically and we have learned how disastrous this has been, and continues to be.
    This whole post is ample proof that atheism "teaches people to not think critically and we have learned how disastrous this has been, and continues to be."


    By the way if you object to my responses to portcontrol7, I require you to show how they are any less true that what portcontrol7 has said, for I will not defend these idiotic statements in their own right, I will only defend the fact that these idiotic statements are no less rational or less justifiable that the utterly idiotic things that portcontrol7 has said.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    to q - what good has religion done! try this on
    The renaisance - its literature, art, music, science
    preservation of Greco-roman culture and science
    the rich contribution to history
    Womens sufferage
    the abolition movement
    the civil rights movemnet
    people who are religous have lower levels of depression, antisocial behavior and sucidal tendency than athiests and agnostics
    the concept of liberty and equality
    most charity and relief organizations
    i actually could go on for sometime if we were to probe further east or move to a more fundamental level

    how about something more fun like soul music, blues music and Rock music (believe it or not) and country/bluegrass

    helping to end the cold war (no Joke)

    unifying Isreal (the first time)
    unifying England (read churchills history of the english speaking peoples)
    organizing germany during the "holy roman empire of the german nation" period

    and much of the rest of Europe for that matter
    without religion the world would be so different i gurentee no one (atleast in the western world, i do not want to step outside my area of expertise) alive today would exist, an altered web of events would have changed happenings and meeting to the point where people would exist just not us specifically, a sort of butterfly effect
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Religion depends upon faulty logic, credulity and ignorance.

    What it boils down to, and why so many securalists are so vehemently opposed to religion, is that it propagates known falsehood (i.e. Man was created by God 6k years ago, Genocide in God's name is righteous) and so openly contradicts itself (Love thy Neighbor, Happy are those that bash the heads of the little children).
    All I can say is, you've been going to the wrong church. Over here in the Old World crude 6ky creationism is as passee in religion as Platonic epicircles are in astronomy and phlogiston in thermodynamics. Yes I do find the genocide in the Old Testament disturbing, but I take it as the battle cry of a people striving to survive in a cruel world; I have yet to hear (and I hope never to hear) a preacher advocating it as a pattern to follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    That religion isn't content to practice it's beliefs alone in silence, but would seek to impose its worldview on all of us is disturbing to many, myself included.
    This is what I find most unfair in the anti-religious camp. You could say exactly the same about almost any system of values, but you single out religion as if it were somehow different.

    Abolitionists (do people still remember that word?) weren't content with not owning slaves themselves, they faught the bloodiest war ever on US soil to rob the Southern cotton growers of their freedom to keep slaves on their farms if they like.
    Environmentalists aren't content to just not wear the furs of baby seals on their own backs; they try to physically prevent the cull, and to get it banned by enforceable laws. Same for excessive CO2 emissions, and preservation of rainforests.
    The Bill of Human Rights isn't just a mantra mothers whisper to their children's ears at bedtime; it is the basis of many a country's constitution, and through that, of laws which must be obeyed under pain of prison.

    If I read "The Spirit of the Laws" and found inspiration in it, and started a political party to implement Montesquieu's ideas in law and government, you might oppose me from a different political position but you will accept my party as a normal part of the democratic process. Do the same with the Gospels, and the whole world cries blue murder; see the fate of Rocco Buttiglione in Europe.

    I challenge you to give me a purely rational and scientific proof for either of these two tenets (which I hope you share with me):

    - that human beings have inalienable rights;
    - that Blacks have exactly the same rights as Whites, and women the same as men (and vice versa).

    Cheers, Leszek
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    at the root of faith is unreason.
    That's correct. And at the root of strong atheism is... faith! This is true both practically and metaphysically.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    I prefer truth to lies anyday.
    No you don't. Society is built on lies. Nice friendly lies, for the most part. The psyche is built on lies too. Does your existence have any meaning or value? In truth, no. But we're not going to believe that. We're going to be unreasonable and affirm *yes!* Portcontrol7 you're a person and therefore ( :wink: ) anointed and worthy in your own right. With deepest sincerity I raise my glass to you, by faith!

    But for those who can't tie belief to sanity without instruction, there is religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    It's true that many things can be used as a justification for doing bad things, but religion even more so because of faith; because of promises of martyrdom.
    Communism justified killing hundreds of millions with the just the promise of a sharing the wealth. Don't let these people fool you with their empty and tired rhetoric, the fact is that when you look at what motivates murder the top of the list isn't any promise martyrdom (LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL sorry could help myself), its money.

    Of course people are a bit less likely to kill themselves for money. But I believe that people still kill themselves for that reason more often than they do for some goofy religion. But in any case, this whole idea is still an example of this dumb logic like: science and technology produced all these bombs and weapons that have killed so many people so science and technology is bad and the world would be better without it.
    My point was that faith is useally the trigger-mechanism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    I don't think there is anything wrong with anyone having beliefs which sustain them through life.

    Most beliefs cannot be proven to be absolutely certain, even the belief that the sun will rise every morning.

    Faith is simply a belief in something which is difficult to prove certain, which is why it involves faith.

    The problems come when people attempt to coerce others in having the same belief or faith in a belief.

    There wouldn't be a problem if people presented their beliefs to others and then sat back and allowed the other person to make their own minds up about it and accept it if the other person decided they didn't believe.

    The trouble with religious traditions is that it is a complex business and many are tied up within a societies cultural and political beliefs also, so in effect belonging to a particular culture will automatically adhere you to that cultures particular religious beliefs whether you agree with it's religious ideals or not.
    This is obvious in strict Muslim countries such as found in the Middle East regarding women for example.

    Another difficulty with religion is the subtle indoctrination.

    It is the nature of most religious organizations to want to acquire a bigger following with more adherents. There is nothing wrong in that of course, but the problem lies in the way it is done, which can sometimes be in a subtle manipulative way.

    One of the best examples of this is of course found in education.

    In the Middle ages for example with Christianity the only chance for women to gain an education was by joining a nunnery. Even in the modern world in certain traditions this is still the case for many women.

    In the recent political Muslim revival there is much debate about the importance of a traditional religious education as opposed to a state education.

    In India where Christianity was first opposed, Missionaries gained a foothold by funding education and thereby influencing Hindus which created much dissidence and Hinduism reform.

    Recently in the UK with Tony Blair as Prime Minister there was controversy of the Labour Governments financial support for Faith schools.

    There is ongoing heated debate in such schools where Creationist Theories are taught as opposed to the more realistic Darwinist Theories of evolution.

    Children in this country are still forced into attending religious assemblies by schools supported by religious institutions regardless of whether they or their families believe or not.

    Religion has often held the purse strings in these cases and while there is failure on the governments to properly fund education, religion will always continue to have the say in what type of education people receive.

    Whilst also of course every religious tradition has it's keen sector of fundamentalists who will often resort to violence and force to make people believe in their particular religion.

    Unfortunately these minorities spoil it for the rest of the religious adherents who quietly and peacefully follow their beliefs whilst allowing others to follow theirs.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman portcontrol7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    All I can say is, you've been going to the wrong church. Over here in the Old World crude 6ky creationism is as passee in religion as Platonic epicircles are in astronomy and phlogiston in thermodynamics. Yes I do find the genocide in the Old Testament disturbing, but I take it as the battle cry of a people striving to survive in a cruel world; I have yet to hear (and I hope never to hear) a preacher advocating it as a pattern to follow.
    The preacher finds the basis of his teachings in the bible, and that some are unpalatable is accepted even by him. Therefore he avoids mentioning these less desirable aspects of the Holy Book, he picks and chooses yet still maintains that "All scriptures are inspired".

    The Hebrew God is not someone that I would want to befriend, he is a bully and warmonger. His book is outdated, and full of contradiction and He claims to be perfect. He is a fiction in my opinion.

    You can also take National Socialism to be the battle cry of a people striving to survive in a cruel world. Lets not forget what actually transpires in the Old Testament. We have progressed ethically to a point where much of it is abhorrent.
    http://sites.google.com/site/portcon...me/bobtiny.JPG

    http://theleapinthedark.blogspot.com

    "The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman portcontrol7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    at the root of faith is unreason.
    That's correct. And at the root of strong atheism is... faith! This is true both practically and metaphysically.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    I prefer truth to lies anyday.
    No you don't. Society is built on lies. Nice friendly lies, for the most part. The psyche is built on lies too. Does your existence have any meaning or value? In truth, no. But we're not going to believe that. We're going to be unreasonable and affirm *yes!* Portcontrol7 you're a person and therefore ( :wink: ) anointed and worthy in your own right. With deepest sincerity I raise my glass to you, by faith!

    But for those who can't tie belief to sanity without instruction, there is religion.
    I would disagree with your view of society. I find it to be to our mutual benefit to cooperate and form civilized society. Please explain how my existence has no meaning or value, is this nihilism? Fatalism?

    Also your euphemistic definition of faith is not the one I'm discussing here, I'm talking about religious belief in a creator god. Do you define the belief that putting on a seatbelt will help you survive a car crash as faith? Perhaps you do, but I put on my seatbelt knowing that it is statistically probable that it will be to my benefit to do so.
    http://sites.google.com/site/portcon...me/bobtiny.JPG

    http://theleapinthedark.blogspot.com

    "The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman portcontrol7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    If I read "The Spirit of the Laws" and found inspiration in it, and started a political party to implement Montesquieu's ideas in law and government, you might oppose me from a different political position but you will accept my party as a normal part of the democratic process. Do the same with the Gospels, and the whole world cries blue murder; see the fate of Rocco Buttiglione in Europe.
    Your welcome to find inspiration in whatever you wish, be it Montesquieu, The Gospel, or Star Wars. This is a far cry from seeing it as a prescription for a healthy society.

    You see the fact is Leszek, that we all have ideas about what can make the world a better place for us to live in, and thats healthy. The problem that comes from a worldview based in intolerance, and bigotry (some Atheists included here) is that it doesn't permit for a healthy debate. I'm glad that I live in a society where I have the right to say God is ridiculous and faith is harmful, and I'm glad that you have the right to disagree.

    At least here I hope we can agree.
    http://sites.google.com/site/portcon...me/bobtiny.JPG

    http://theleapinthedark.blogspot.com

    "The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    If I read "The Spirit of the Laws" and found inspiration in it, and started a political party to implement Montesquieu's ideas in law and government, you might oppose me from a different political position but you will accept my party as a normal part of the democratic process. Do the same with the Gospels, and the whole world cries blue murder; see the fate of Rocco Buttiglione in Europe.
    Your welcome to find inspiration in whatever you wish, be it Montesquieu, The Gospel, or Star Wars. This is a far cry from seeing it as a prescription for a healthy society.
    What do you see 'as a prescription for a healthy society'?

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    You see the fact is Leszek, that we all have ideas about what can make the world a better place for us to live in,
    What do you think 'can make the world a better place for us to live in.'?

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    and thats healthy. The problem that comes from a worldview based in intolerance, and bigotry (some Atheists included here)
    Agreed! Atheists can tend to 'throw the bath water out with the baby' there is obviously a religious instinct in man/womankind that shouldn't be ignored and dismissed if we are to learn about ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    is that it doesn't permit for a healthy debate. I'm glad that I live in a society where I have the right to say God is ridiculous and faith is harmful, and I'm glad that you have the right to disagree.

    At least here I hope we can agree.
    so am I!

    Do you believe then portcontrol7 that 'God is ridiculous and faith is harmful'?
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (..❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.☼....-♥゜・*.:。✿*゚゚・✿.。.:* *.:。.❀.`.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman portcontrol7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    If I read "The Spirit of the Laws" and found inspiration in it, and started a political party to implement Montesquieu's ideas in law and government, you might oppose me from a different political position but you will accept my party as a normal part of the democratic process. Do the same with the Gospels, and the whole world cries blue murder; see the fate of Rocco Buttiglione in Europe.
    Your welcome to find inspiration in whatever you wish, be it Montesquieu, The Gospel, or Star Wars. This is a far cry from seeing it as a prescription for a healthy society.
    What do you see 'as a prescription for a healthy society'?

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    You see the fact is Leszek, that we all have ideas about what can make the world a better place for us to live in,
    What do you think 'can make the world a better place for us to live in.'?

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    and thats healthy. The problem that comes from a worldview based in intolerance, and bigotry (some Atheists included here)
    Agreed! Atheists can tend to 'throw the bath water out with the baby' there is obviously a religious instinct in man/womankind that shouldn't be ignored and dismissed if we are to learn about ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    is that it doesn't permit for a healthy debate. I'm glad that I live in a society where I have the right to say God is ridiculous and faith is harmful, and I'm glad that you have the right to disagree.

    At least here I hope we can agree.
    so am I!

    Do you believe then portcontrol7 that 'God is ridiculous and faith is harmful'?
    The prescription for a healthy society cannot be made by any one person, a large part of it in my opinion is a healthy exchange of ideas. I think most of us agree on certain things however, caring for our fellow man/woman, freedom of speach, concern for our environment and the creatures we share it with.

    I think my ideas on God are very clear.

    Equating the ubiquity of religion with instinct is a logical fallacy. This is a huge can of worms that I don't want to open at this point, but I will say that if there are something equivalent to a "God Gene", that doesn't mean that God holds any rational value.

    That what is false yet comforting trumps truth is not what I personally believe in. I hope that truth will bring us to a better world, and we will as a species throw off the burdensome veil of religion.

    What do you think?
    http://sites.google.com/site/portcon...me/bobtiny.JPG

    http://theleapinthedark.blogspot.com

    "The most monstrous effect of the indoctrination of the young by religion, is not that they are mislead, but are trained to mislead themselves." - Me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    i'd say a prescription for a healthy society, is one which progresses, instead of stagnating or detoriorating.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    i'd say a prescription for a healthy society, is one which progresses, instead of stagnating or detoriorating.
    Please be careful how you use the word "progress", or you can get caught in a vicious circle.

    Progress is, by definition, a forward movement. Forward is, by definition, the direction someone is heading.

    Almost every violent ideology, whether secular or religious, claims to be moving the world forwards. When Hitler opened the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, he called it "the first Olympic Games in the new era" (der neuen Zeitrechnung, literally, in the new measure of time, as if years were counted from his ascent to power). The Communists had their mouths full of progress, and everything they corrupted their way was henceforth "of a new type".

    In the words of J.B. Priestly, all the evil in this world is brought about by persons who are always up and doing but do not know when they ought to be up nor what they ought to be doing. I will add - by those who run forward without looking beyond their own outstretched index finger.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    There are only two things that end a discussion better than a selective quote, and that is two selective quotes. And so before going to bed, I will twice, very selectively, quote my friendly opponent Portcontrol7:

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Lets not forget what actually transpires in the Old Testament. We have progressed ethically to a point where much of it is abhorrent.
    This is why the New Testament is called New.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Your welcome to find inspiration in whatever you wish, be it Montesquieu, The Gospel, or Star Wars.
    So I hope we can agree that ideas, like people, should be judged on their merit, and not excluded from public life just because of their origin.

    Peace and good night.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    YAY!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    And at the root of strong atheism is... faith! This is true both practically and metaphysically.

    Society is built on lies. Nice friendly lies, for the most part. The psyche is built on lies too. Does your existence have any meaning or value? In truth, no. But we're not going to believe that. We're going to be unreasonable and affirm *yes!* Portcontrol7 you're a person and therefore ( :wink: ) anointed and worthy in your own right. With deepest sincerity I raise my glass to you, by faith!

    But for those who can't tie belief to sanity without instruction, there is religion.
    I would disagree with your view of society. I find it to be to our mutual benefit to cooperate and form civilized society.
    I suppose if you really must see the universe (including us) as rational and efficient. Love because it gives you pleasure. Trust because you appraise the payoff worth the risk of investment. While this view in not incorrect, it is just one narrow & monochrome lens. You do realize certain people are uncomfortable with a more engaging view, for personal reasons, often at a stage in life.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Please explain how my existence has no meaning or value, is this nihilism? Fatalism?
    Most atheists shrug off the question of "meaning". I assume we share a common understanding, that there is no meaning of life... nothing particularly relevant to human beings anyway. Now what can we do with that? We can forget about it and just keep going on inertia - animals essentially; we can take it as a mortal put down and be nihilists, cold blooded materialists, etc; or we can find a way above it, in spite of it. A bootstrap operation.

    Quote Originally Posted by portcontrol7
    Also your euphemistic definition of faith is not the one I'm discussing here, I'm talking about religious belief in a creator god. Do you define the belief that putting on a seatbelt will help you survive a car crash as faith? Perhaps you do, but I put on my seatbelt knowing that it is statistically probable that it will be to my benefit to do so.
    I mean faith as theologians use the term: belief, in absence of evidence; or even belief regardless of evidence. That's a meaningful and broadly useful term, for note faith here does not necessarily mean belief in God. Some people have faith in bigfoot. An atheist can have faith too (just rinse the Christian flavour off the word). Honest theologians do admit that faith is synonymous with unreason. So, faith is lies.

    Yikes! Don't wanna go near that do we? Unreason?! Well on the face of it this seems totally insane. But there's this funny issue with insanity. Sanity and reason often disagree (I mean reason as you portcontrol7 present it: beneficial, logical, "statistically probable that it will be to my benefit"). One notes the paradox most starkly in murder trials of psychopaths like Jeffrey Dahmer, where lawyers try to determine if methodically dismembering bodies for tidy storage in a freezer, indicates insanity, or rational behaviour under the circumstances and therefore guilt. On a lighter note, we have wedding vows and other sweet examples of sane though unreasonable behaviour and belief.

    Where sanity and reason conflict, is faith, or instinct & dumb conditioning if you're not mindful. I argue this zone of conflict owns a huge portion of the human condition. It's a class of belief. For example "good" in the philosophical sense. We can't even rationalize "sanity" itself. So, perfect reason (the way "reason" is meant in contrast to "faith") though correct in itself, is not sane.

    Now I ask you as a fellow person, through the medium of society, do you really strive for pure reason? I think if you do, you're insane. If you dodge the question, perhaps by vaguely conflating sanity with reason, you're like most of us. If you willfully believe in what is sane and "only human" even at the expense of what is rational and true, then you've made a conscious leap of faith.

    You can follow that up with ethics. It's quite fruitful.


    I would really love to see greater sophistication in popular atheist thought. Even consensus. I don't thing we can do this while shunning all things that whiff of religion though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    to q - what good has religion done! try this on
    The renaisance - its literature, art, music, science
    Nope. The Renaissance spawned humanism when religion was rife with turmoil and corruption.

    preservation of Greco-roman culture and science
    Nope. The Scientific Method played the part in science. Religion did everything to quash science.

    the rich contribution to history
    Are you referring to religious indoctrination, wars and bloodshed?

    Womens sufferage
    Considering that was a political movement, it was probably based on religions treatment of women throughout the ages, that of chattel.

    the abolition movement
    Slavery is sanctioned in the bible.

    the civil rights movemnet
    Nonsense, religion divides people and is bigoted to a wide variety of people; homosexuals, for example.

    people who are religous have lower levels of depression, antisocial behavior and sucidal tendency than athiests and agnostics
    Yet, the prisons are full of theists. Divorce rates and violent crime are highest in religious societies.

    the concept of liberty and equality
    See above for civil rights.

    most charity and relief organizations
    Nope. Most of those are secular.

    i actually could go on for sometime if we were to probe further east or move to a more fundamental level
    Your list has been decimated, easily.

    how about something more fun like soul music, blues music and Rock music (believe it or not) and country/bluegrass
    No, I don't believe it.

    helping to end the cold war (no Joke)
    That is a huge fucking joke. Gimme a break, pal.

    without religion the world would be so different i gurentee no one (atleast in the western world, i do not want to step outside my area of expertise) alive today would exist, an altered web of events would have changed happenings and meeting to the point where people would exist just not us specifically, a sort of butterfly effect
    Oh yes, the world would be very different without religion. If science could have taken a foothold instead of religion, we'd might be a society without diseases, perhaps little or no crime, plentiful resources, far less extinction of species around the world, no wars, no famine, no poverty.

    And everyone gets free education.

    Sort of a butterfly effect. :wink:
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    on line quips are not suffecient in refuting me, most of your answers are either lay assumptions or an effect of of something i braught up not the cause such as renaissance - humanism

    the Greeks and romans did not have the formal scientific method we have so your next statement actually has nothing to do with anything

    i wont even get into how much of a lay assumption the next one is

    Womens rights movement is political but that is not seperable with religion and guess what, where did the concept of an equil soul come from and where did womens groups meet to begin these movement! WOMENS CHURCH GROUPS

    slavery is mentioned in the bible, it is not endorsed, but once agian the backbone of of the abolition movement CHURCH GROUPS and the concept of the equil soul agian stemming from the Secound Great Awakening

    Civil rights- the response you gave is vague and has no source it is agian a lay assumption (i bet your in highschool) guess what once agian Church goups - the whole movement supported by religous ideas some i have already mentioned, not to mention Dr.King's (who was a minister) entire organization was centered around southern baptist leaders.

    next point - just google it athiests are more prone to these things than theist, sucide, depression and antisocial behavior

    yes many relief organization today are not directly afflilated with one specific church but if you look at its history and continued relationship with church organizations and individuals you have no arguement here either

    thats brings us to music rock, blues, soul, country
    every one takes away fundamnetal, themes and styles from their church music
    not to mention many artist get their first and sometimes only formall training in church
    it is the ultimate source of music for the common people before radio and before that sheet music

    q once agian your one liners patterned "No, <insert assumption here> <forget to put in facts here>" does no suffice, i dont know what your doing right now, youll probibly read this after you take the bus home from school and your mom makes you dinner. i say this because if your not a grade school student i'm not sure where you would work in the real world, perhaps sweeping the floors at the grade school.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    helping to end the cold war (no Joke)
    That is a huge fucking joke. Gimme a break, pal.
    No it is not. I was there when it happened. I'd say the church under JP2 was among the three decisive factors that brought the Soviet empire down - along with Reagan's Star Wars and the Soviet own botched invasion in Afghanistan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    helping to end the cold war (no Joke)
    That is a huge fucking joke. Gimme a break, pal.
    No it is not. I was there when it happened. I'd say the church under JP2 was among the three decisive factors that brought the Soviet empire down - along with Reagan's Star Wars and the Soviet own botched invasion in Afghanistan.
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Everybody and his grandma and his grandma's dog try to claim credit for that one.

    Let see, who else do I know who tries to claim credit for that one...

    Ronald Regan and people involved in the Star Wars "project".

    Rev Sun Myung Moon is another one.

    The religious right in America and the Bush Administration (the first one).

    Oh and you know I was over there in Latvia when it all happened, you know when Gorbachev disappeared during the military coup and when the tanks rolled into Riga, the capitol of Latvia. Brought home a piece of Lenin's statue when I left. My presence made a difference don't you think? LOL LOL LOL LOL

    I guess all it take is the kind of ego that thinks that the world revolves around you.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Oh and you know I was over there in Latvia when it all happened, you know when Gorbachev disappeared during the military coup and when the tanks rolled into Riga, the capitol of Latvia. Brought home a piece of Lenin's statue when I left. My presence made a difference don't you think?
    Did 2M people gather around you, in one day and one place? Did the KGB think you dangerous enough to try to assassinate you? If so, yes, you did make a difference, and I will count you as the fourth decisive factor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I somewhat agree with both Leszek Luchowski and mitchellmckain here. The Pope clearly threw his weight into Poland and made a difference, as a rallying point. Yet a man to rally behind was inevitable. Contrast John Paul II's warning re invading Iraq: that God would not be on the invader's side. No weight, no effect. He was not even a barometer of mainstream US Catholic sentiment. See, in both examples the "great man" personifies popular sentiment, and can't much generate or moderate that sentiment.

    Another Paul, we credit for the inevitable New Testament, is no different. His words are bouyed up by forces beyond him, originating deep in the human psyche. Same goes for Jesus, or Moses, or the perfect figurehead who can't ever contradict sentiment whatever it may be: God.

    Now the debate is over whether religion is a positive force or a negative one. (Q) gets caught up in the debate because he accepts and even strongly supports the premise that religion is a powerful agent. He insists that religion causes people to think this or that, through indoctrination. It is a prime cause, in (Q)'s view. He holds religion largely responsible for individuals and society. (Q) corroborates his opponents' belief with a passion exceeding their own. IMO that's a lot of undue credit, that on a fundamental level his opponents must find invigorating.

    Neither side, with that attitude, can study religion as a window on humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    The Pope clearly threw his weight into Poland and made a difference, as a rallying point. Yet a man to rally behind was inevitable.
    Granted. As I like to say, the strength of the river is not in its current but in its catchment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    he is right the church was a huge factor, once agian it provided a safe way for people to congregate without suspision amoung other things
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    16
    Very interesting discussion!

    I personally am agnostic - far smarter people than myself are alive and have lived that had totally different views on faith/spirituality - so i conclude it is beyond human cognition to understand diviniation.

    Personally i believe that religion is a subtle form of discrimination and as such is based on ignorance, i have felt this first-hand when i received death threats for dating a muslim girl (one that didnt wear a hijab, played sports and went to clubs with me )!
    'Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.'

    - Joel A. Barker
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The main fault of religion compared to science
    Who created the universe?

    Religious man: God of course!
    How do you know that?
    Religious man: I have faith it happaned
    Just because you have faith makes it true?
    Religious man: Yes it does!
    Will you ever change your mind?
    Religious man: Whats to change our mind about? God created everything. End of story! Period!

    Scientist: I theorize that the big bang created the universe
    How do you know that?
    Scientist: I am not certain, but it is the best guess we currently have for how we came to be.
    Since you are not certain, it makes it true?
    Scientist: Not necessarily. However, until we find a better solution or a different variable to our current situation, then it's the best thing we have to go by.
    Will you ever change your mind?
    Scientist: If the situation deems necessary to change our mind do to new facts and observations, than yes. We will fall in line with the new theory.


    See the differance? The stereotypical religious man will not change his mind no matter what and fully believes god created everything. Narrow way of thinking and he has no proof or idea's. only faith from what someone else told him. It's like when you were a kid and your mom said, "Hey, be good so Santa can deliver presents to you." Christmas is a religious holiday. Santa, even though he is derived from various cultures, is now considered a christian "mascot". You were lied to about santa clause from your parents. Now what would you do if you didn't question your parents and you just went with the lie for your entire life? You would still believe in santa till you died. Now associate santa with god. You are told something for all your life until you die. But you fully believe it because your parents fully believed it. Same goes with their parents and so on and so forth. Eventually... If a lie is told enough, it will eventually become "truth"...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Vid P
    Very interesting discussion!

    I personally am agnostic - far smarter people than myself are alive and have lived that had totally different views on faith/spirituality - so i conclude it is beyond human cognition to understand diviniation.

    Personally i believe that religion is a subtle form of discrimination and as such is based on ignorance, i have felt this first-hand when i received death threats for dating a muslim girl (one that didnt wear a hijab, played sports and went to clubs with me )!
    Vid, diviniation isn't a word. If you mean divination, than that is the foretelling of future events dealing with instinct or foresight. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Even though do not credit the claim that he stopped the cold war, I do like pope John Paul II and I even have the catechism that has his name on it. I was quite a apalled to find out that there were "catholics" that think that John Paul II was a false pope.

    I have adopted some of the theological positions of the Eastern Orthodox church but I still like the Roman Catholic church better. Why? because Eastern Orthodox church is too conservative. The Eastern Orthodox is the oldest and most stable Christian church on the planet, investing authority in eccumenical councils as did the earliest Christian church. The way that the RC concentrates power in a single person is a very unstable way to run things, but it is also a lot less boring and opens the door (when the old fogeys at the Vatican are deadlocked) for a charismatic/prophetic new leader that can turn things upside down and fight for change. Ah but what can you expect from someone like me who has attached himself to the most fluid and changeable Christian church there is. We have even adopted a philosophy that the church of today should give birth to new churches in the next generation even if it dies in the process.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Santa
    That jolly old elf is good example of what I like about religion. It's perfectly good nonsense. Of course Santa won't stand up to rational debate, and trying to defend him with logical argument can only spoil the spirit of Christmas. The goodness depends on the nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    We have even adopted a philosophy that the church of today should give birth to new churches in the next generation even if it dies in the process.
    That's quite a sacrifice for an organization to make. Orgs aren't supposed to be capable of relinquishing power by their own initiative.

    Could your church offer itself for morals recycling by non-Christians though? I've always had a taste for *smacks chops* much of the Bible menu, but church demand I should first and foremost believe in God, is exclusive. Then one feels like a cannibal taking fat cuts off a missionary while rejecting the message.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    We have even adopted a philosophy that the church of today should give birth to new churches in the next generation even if it dies in the process.
    That's quite a sacrifice for an organization to make. Orgs aren't supposed to be capable of relinquishing power by their own initiative.
    An organization is a living organism, so their own survival would seem to be high priority interest. But there is something that is even a higher priority for living things than survival and that is evolution (i.e. adaptation) itself. The reason for this is that a living organism that lives forever but does not adapt will eventually be wiped out in a changing environment. But if an individual organism gives birth to diverse offspring then even if it dies, the life process, that it is a part of, survives because of the adaptability provided by the variations in its offspring.

    In biological evolution this is represented by the development of sexual reproduction. Organisms that reproduce asexually never die, they simply multiply. But looking at the world, the limitations of asexual reproduction becomes quite obvious.

    In any case, the Christians involved in the formation of my sort of church studied the patterns and processes of church growth and development, seeing how churches growing fantastically in the beginning would change as time went on, cease to grow and eventually die because later generations would find no appeal in them at all. So they concluded that it would better to accept the death of the church as inevitable and focus its energy on the next generation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Could your church offer itself for morals recycling by non-Christians though? I've always had a taste for *smacks chops* much of the Bible menu, but church demand I should first and foremost believe in God, is exclusive. Then one feels like a cannibal taking fat cuts off a missionary while rejecting the message.
    You can do as like, but of course it should be clear from the above analogy that there will be something like the genetic code that gives gives this sort of church its species identity. The lion will not sacrifice itself for the sake of a worm, but the worms might, of course, feast on the carcass of the dead lion. But the future belongs to the species that can find new life and not to those who continue to spout the same tired old rhetoric of the dead.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore GrowlingDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At the gates of Sto-vo-kor
    Posts
    181
    Ok, lets imagine that you were interested in working for a large company, lets say Mcdonalds. It would be remiss of you as a prospective employee not to do some research into the history of the company right?

    Now, what if after only a little bit of research you found examples in the company of Pedophilia, racism, sexism, hypocrisy, bigotry, cruelty and so on, would you still be interested in working for McDonalds?

    I mean they say that their food is healthy and that it will make you feel great. In fact they say if you dont eat their food you could be going to hell. Would you look into it a little deeper before signing on board?

    What if you found out that some store managers were cheating on their wives but claiming to be clean and honest to all their customers who were paying big dollars to eat there? what if you found that NOT eating at McDonalds actually made you feel better about yourself and NOT guilty about things you may have eaten in the past.

    What if McDonalds claimed to have a wonderful ingredient in their burgers but could not show anyone, not even employers what it was.

    Maybe this is a bad example but if religion was as open and as accountable as McDonalds they would have gone out of business long ago, and lets not kid ourselves there is far more money in religion than there ever will be in burgers.
    Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Right, but you might still barbecue some patties with your friends, shamelessly copying the McDonalds burger recipe.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    In biological evolution this is represented by the development of sexual reproduction.
    Schisms and mergers. Yeah I see it... wow! But to promote and protect this evolving church ecology, some overseeing body, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    the Christians involved in the formation of my sort of church studied the patterns and processes of church growth and development

    ...they concluded that it would better to accept the death of the church as inevitable and focus its energy on the next generation.
    Double wow!

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    something like the genetic code that gives this sort of church its species identity
    Overextended metaphor IMHO. See the limitations of computer viruses, they can never overcome. Finally, you're still just dealing in information, communicated between minds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
    Maybe this is a bad example but if religion was as open and as accountable as McDonalds they would have gone out of business long ago, and lets not kid ourselves there is far more money in religion than there ever will be in burgers.
    Such has been the continued prediction about religion for centuries and during that time it has been an open market in which people can vote with their feet. But despite the bad press and ridiculous lies blaming religion for everything under the sun, religion continues to thrive. The only possible explanation is that people do benefit from what they offer despite all the lies and press to the contrary and even the use of violence to exterminate its members.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Schisms and mergers. Yeah I see it... wow! But to promote and protect this evolving church ecology, some overseeing body, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    something like the genetic code that gives this sort of church its species identity
    Overextended metaphor IMHO.
    Not over extended. You just aren't seeing everything yet. Do the species have an overseeing body (besides God that is)? There is only the genetic code. Its exact defining boundaries change over time as the evolutionary process weeds out the meaningless junk to purify the real life giving message. In the evangelical church this has been the isolation of the essential teachings of Chrisitanity from the things which are cultural and a matter of preference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Finally, you're still just dealing in information, communicated between minds.
    There is no "just" about it. We are talking about life and communicated information is an essential part of the process.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Vid P
    I personally am agnostic - far smarter people than myself are alive and have lived that had totally different views on faith/spirituality - so i conclude it is beyond human cognition to understand diviniation.

    Personally i believe that religion is a subtle form of discrimination and as such is based on ignorance, i have felt this first-hand when i received death threats for dating a muslim girl (one that didnt wear a hijab, played sports and went to clubs with me )!
    Personally I have never been interested in any kind of sport, and I don't really understand why people get so excited about it. But I recently parked my car near a football stadium in a different town, and when the fans saw my number plates they beat me up and smashed my windscreen.

    So now personally I believe that sport is nothing else than a subtle (or not so subtle) form of hate mongering, and the much-taunted olympic ideal of Faster, Stronger, Higher simply means beating people up more effectively.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    That is wholly illogical. A group of hooligans who have associated themselves with a football team cannot be taken to represent the motivations of the players, support workers, and genuine fans of the sport. It is not only illogical to reach that conclusion it is ludicrous and indefensible.

    I take no issue with you for finding nothing personally satsifying or interesting in sport - that is a rightly subjective issue - but your flawed characterisation, based upon a minority reaction only incidentally related to sport is frankly astounding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That is wholly illogical. A group of hooligans who have associated themselves with a football team cannot be taken to represent the motivations of the players, support workers, and genuine fans of the sport. It is not only illogical to reach that conclusion it is ludicrous and indefensible.
    I hope you understand I was not presenting my real view on sport (or, thankfully, my real experience with it). It was a fictional story and interpretation, meant as a caricature - and reduction to absurdity - of Vid P's statement on religion.

    This being said, for all my objections against his (or her) conclusion, kudos to Vid P for still being agnostic after his scary experience with religious fanatics. Most people would have become millitant atheists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    on line quips are not suffecient in refuting me
    One line quips are all you offered. I responded in kind.

    most of your answers are either lay assumptions or an effect of of something i braught up not the cause such as renaissance - humanism
    "Lay" appears to be all you're able to comprehend.

    the Greeks and romans did not have the formal scientific method we have so your next statement actually has nothing to do with anything
    Then, your grossly exaggerated generalization had to do with something?

    i wont even get into how much of a lay assumption the next one is
    Or, maybe you simply choose to ignore the nasty bits of your cults history.

    Womens rights movement is political but that is not seperable with religion and guess what, where did the concept of an equil soul come from and where did womens groups meet to begin these movement! WOMENS CHURCH GROUPS
    Oh, I see. Due to the fact that a church was used for the original meeting, you've made claim to a victory that these were "WOMENS CHURCH GROUPS" and not just "WOMEN" - Funny, when the movement took off, they had to relocate their meetings to larger non-denominational facilities. Would you now refer to them as "WOMENS ARENA GROUPS?"

    slavery is mentioned in the bible, it is not endorsed
    "Those among us who remain dedicated to the Bible, especially African Americans, should realize that while it may be morally correct in some cases, the Bible's unrelenting endorsement of slavery is certainly immoral. Now, some Bible apologists have been quick to point out to me those verses such as Colossians 4:1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle or mean and cruel the slave is still a slave and therefore is bereft of freedom and stripped of human dignity. In the final analysis it is the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery. Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it. "

    http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html


    Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

    Deuteronomy 23:15-16 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

    Numbers 31:28-47 "And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord."

    Mark 14:66 "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest."

    Exodus 21:8 "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

    Leviticus 25:39 "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return."

    The Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy mention that the punishment for kidnapping an Israelite and selling them into slavery is punishable by death. And a debtor who could not pay back creditors could be sold into slavery or have his children sold.

    Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

    Deuteronomy 24:7 "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

    II Kings 4:1 "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."

    Samuel 9:10: "...Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants."

    1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

    Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

    Colossians 3:11 "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

    Sources
    The Bible, 21st Century King James Version.
    The Bible, King James Version.
    The Bible, Modern Language Version.
    The Bible, New International Version.
    The Bible, New Living Translation.
    The Bible, Revised Standard Version.

    Civil rights- the response you gave is vague and has no source
    And, where were your sources when you made your silly claims?

    it is agian a lay assumption (i bet your in highschool)
    Actually, I'm only 8 years old, but I'm debating you.

    guess what once agian Church goups - the whole movement supported by religous ideas some i have already mentioned, not to mention Dr.King's (who was a minister) entire organization was centered around southern baptist leaders.
    Yeah sure, if you center your entire argument around Dr. King and his movement. You, of course, choose to ignore the many other civil rights movements around the world during that time, which had nothing to do with religion.

    next point - just google it athiests are more prone to these things than theist, sucide, depression and antisocial behavior
    Here you go:

    http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

    yes many relief organization today are not directly afflilated with one specific church but if you look at its history and continued relationship with church organizations and individuals you have no arguement here either
    Ah, so the requirement is that in order for you to understand you don't have an argument is for you to make the claim and then admit you have no argument when evidence is presented. Works for me.

    thats brings us to music rock, blues, soul, country
    every one takes away fundamnetal, themes and styles from their church music
    not to mention many artist get their first and sometimes only formall training in church
    it is the ultimate source of music for the common people before radio and before that sheet music
    So, those who attend music academies and schools are just pissing into the wind?

    q once agian your one liners patterned "No, <insert assumption here> <forget to put in facts here>" does no suffice
    And your patterned one liners DO suffice?

    i dont know what your doing right now, youll probibly read this after you take the bus home from school and your mom makes you dinner. i say this because if your not a grade school student i'm not sure where you would work in the real world, perhaps sweeping the floors at the grade school.
    Oh no, I'm too busy playing with my model railroads.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    To noone in particular:
    we are discussing issues and values which are essential to many of us, whether religious or secular. While being legitimately critical of each other's views, please let us be respectful of each other as persons. Derision, insult, and ad hominem remarks are not the way to make our point.
    Thank you - L.L.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Quote Originally Posted by Vid P
    I personally am agnostic - far smarter people than myself are alive and have lived that had totally different views on faith/spirituality - so i conclude it is beyond human cognition to understand diviniation.

    Personally i believe that religion is a subtle form of discrimination and as such is based on ignorance, i have felt this first-hand when i received death threats for dating a muslim girl (one that didnt wear a hijab, played sports and went to clubs with me )!
    Personally I have never been interested in any kind of sport, and I don't really understand why people get so excited about it. But I recently parked my car near a football stadium in a different town, and when the fans saw my number plates they beat me up and smashed my windscreen.

    So now personally I believe that sport is nothing else than a subtle (or not so subtle) form of hate mongering, and the much-taunted olympic ideal of Faster, Stronger, Higher simply means beating people up more effectively.


    My personal beliefs were not intended to insult anybody (which obviously you have been) and in trying to make an analogy of them u have come off looking silly.

    I have done in depth studies into Islam, Buddhism and Christianity both at University and throughout High school - it is not my area of expertise but i dare say my knowledge in the area based purely on education can only be matched by scholars who majored in the area! So before you ride your high horse in trying to make nonsenical analogies based on assumptions about people you don't know...learn some manners, there are better ways to take up an issue with someone if you have a problem with what they say.
    'Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.'

    - Joel A. Barker
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Vid P, I apologize for the rude tone of my analogy.

    I stick to the logical point which I should have made in a more civilized way: that the threats some brutes have made to you do not warrant saying that religion is a form of discrimination.

    It can be used as a basis for discrimination, as can any other attribute by which people identify themselves as a group: gender, race, ethnicity (such as being Georgian vs Ossetian or Irish-American vs Italian-American), family bonds (mafia structures often call themselves "families") etc. Which does not mean that either of them is a form of discrimination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    q- once agian one line quips, in this arguement between me and you that you decided to start (and very rudely) you havent said anything of merit, if it means anything to you, i win. end
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    Vid P, I apologize for the rude tone of my analogy.

    I stick to the logical point which I should have made in a more civilized way: that the threats some brutes have made to you do not warrant saying that religion is a form of discrimination.

    It can be used as a basis for discrimination, as can any other attribute by which people identify themselves as a group: gender, race, ethnicity (such as being Georgian vs Ossetian or Irish-American vs Italian-American), family bonds (mafia structures often call themselves "families") etc. Which does not mean that either of them is a form of discrimination.
    Leszek, first and foremost thankyou for the apology. Secondly let me clarify my post. In no way did i say that the events regarding the unjust threats i received shaped my views on religion - it was just an example backing up my previous statement - it would be foolish for anybody to base their actions and beliefs in reaction to insults/threats from lesser people. I have held the beliefs i stated since high school.

    Also the way you are interpreting my use of the word discrimination is associated with the dorogatory definition - for example using it by saying 'discrimination against' however it is defined as 'discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences' (thankyou wikipedia) just like ethnicity or sex. In hindsight, my post was not very well worded and i can see why you may have taken offence to it due to my own apparent ignorance.
    'Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.'

    - Joel A. Barker
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Religion holds back scientific advancement. The burning of Alexandria, the change from Ancient Chinese science to whatever they were afterward, etc...
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Religion holds back scientific advancement. The burning of Alexandria, the change from Ancient Chinese science to whatever they were afterward, etc...
    The initiation of genetic research and the second cornerstone of the Theory of Evolution by the monk Mendel, the concept of the Big Bang, proposed by the Catholic priest Lemaitre. Look! I can cherry pick too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The genetic research by a 'monk' was not based on religious principles.
    If the monk said, "Well, evolution is this because the bible said so" then it would be within religious principles.
    As it stands. He used his brain to determined the answer.
    While the burning of alexandria and the concept where religion says, "Stem cell research is immoral and bad and Human genetic modification is immoral and bad and the world is only 6,000 years old so lets burn all evidence that says otherwise" That is all based off of religious principle. They say that if it's not allowed in the "good book" it shouldn't be taught or allowed at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    The genetic research by a 'monk' was not based on religious principles.
    Don't you wish life were that simple? that a monk could just say well i'm doing science now so i'll put religion in a little drawer for a moment, life isint that simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    q- once agian one line quips, in this arguement between me and you that you decided to start (and very rudely) you havent said anything of merit, if it means anything to you, i win. end
    Congratulations!
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    The genetic research by a 'monk' was not based on religious principles.
    Don't you wish life were that simple? that a monk could just say well i'm doing science now so i'll put religion in a little drawer for a moment, life isint that simple.
    Thats not what I ment. What I mean is that there is a difference between scientific principles and religious principles. If you make a discovery that has NOTHING to do with your religion and you happen to be christian... Does that make it a christian discovery? No, of course not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    i agree with you in most cases but in mendels case there is a very deep religous connection

    http://www.venturacountystar.com/new...ion-and-faith/

    "Mendel would be horrified to see the way in which people are being asked to make a choice between God and science," Collins said. "That's an unnecessary choice."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    i agree with you in most cases but in mendels case there is a very deep religous connection

    http://www.venturacountystar.com/new...ion-and-faith/

    "Mendel would be horrified to see the way in which people are being asked to make a choice between God and science," Collins said. "That's an unnecessary choice."
    Collins is disingenuous when it comes to religion, in that he wholeheartedly agrees that one must take a neutral position from a scientific standpoint when adjudicating that which can be assessed by science, and that he agrees that religion is a question that can determined with evidence, yet when pressed on the topic of evolution, in that it doesn't require Intelligent Design, Collins turns to his Christian faith and proclaims, "God is mysterious."

    Collins is a fucking hypocrite.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Re: What is so faulty about religion...Why is it bad 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    i don't see it, i really don't. I know how religion can be used to justify actions, such as the crusades but anything can be used in this fashion, taxes, science, modernity, government, nationalism, ect. But these things are not by nature the cause, they are justifications just like religion. And i believe when you wieght out all the good that religion as a whole has done in the modern era, we truely have a positive outcome. [/i]
    Religion is 'good' when it is derived from NATURE.
    All these 'material' goodies are modified copies derived from Nature.

    Birds-planes, ducks-boats, fish-submarines, river dams-beavers, sonar-dolphins and bats and some not so obvious links.

    But when you look to the bibles OT, than you learn what evil is.

    So I say, dump the bible and its word and replace with Nature and its pictures.

    See the beauty of the rising and setting Sun, the rainbows, the colorful fish and birds, the mountain scenery and etc.

    However, do not stare at the high Sun without eye protection.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fort Meade
    Posts
    5
    Religion in it's early years set the stage for man kinds advance, but as time progressed people began to be held back by religion, it was just a road bump in scientific advancement. Religions, such as Christianity, during the the middle ages were very ignorant and close minded, and refused to believe anything new and threatened those who followed intellectual pursuits, i.e. Galileo. This is not a biased view, it is true, something you can see plain as day if you ever read a history book.
    "The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: The Purpose of Religion 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by Post-Science
    Both good and evil exist in our world. Evil is a survival mechanism for the weak to compete against the strong. There should be a proper balance between good and evil. Religions are invented to combat excessive evil; a perfectly good (strong) person needs no religion. At the time of Christ, there must be excessive evil, as evidencesd by the crucification. Chien Yi Lee, Post-Science Institute
    What a load of tosh!

    Define good and evil?

    Define weak and strong?

    Your just putting up replies so you can propagate your spam evidenced by your mass of links in your tag.

    Spam Brigade......................kill him on the way out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    post-science what aload of crap, your basically exhorting your own religion and yet saying a strong person does not need religion
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •