Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 161

Thread: Atheists

  1. #81
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Only the loudest, worst-read believers think any holy book is the "infallible word of God". Scholars see them as books, but books which serve as the foundation/constitution of the religions.

    Religions can not grow up without critics growing up too. If critics (Atheists in particular) would stop using the religious extremes as a straw man for religion as a whole, the extremists would have lost their voice and credibility a long time ago and the voice of the scholars and our common sense would be heard.
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  2. #82
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    sailor jack, that's an incredible guess, and i think a very naive and inaccurate one.

    in a way, the world needs "radical atheism" as much as it needed "radical feminism"; neither is in itself on the money, but both are much-needed kicks in the pants for the deeply religious/patriarchal world. (i won't argue that point too stringently, because it's also a bit of a guess, but quite a convincing one, i find.)

    you say that "if critics (Atheists in particular) would stop using the religious extremes as a straw man for religion as a whole, the extremists would have lost their voice and credibility a long time ago"; but -- that's simply nonsense. why would they have lost their voice? they have had the overwhelming voice the world over for millennia. what we today call religious extremism was essentially the norm for a very, very long time -- basically until it was more convenient to go after things like industry and science, at which point it started to lose its grip. are you saying that, if things had been allowed to run their course, without the intervention of pesky dawkins and hitchens (etc), the trend would have continued more rapidly? that's a pretty nonsensical thing to suppose.

    it's true that strawman* arguments by atheists (or feminists) does the cause little good, but they don't drastically set it back, either. religion is deeply embedded in our society's status quo. it will continue to be until is shaken out. ...which will never -- or at least not for a very, very long time, and organically, not because some atheists want it to happen -- actually happen in a substantive enough way to make a difference. which brings me to...

    Quote Originally Posted by yrogerg123 View Post
    How does religion "grow up?" As far as I can tell, religions are pretty intrinsically tied to their holy books, which are considered the infallible word of god.
    how much do you think the average christian on your street resembles a christian from a thousand years ago? how about a hundred? what beliefs do you think they have in common? sadly, far too many people still believe evolution is bogus, but millions the world over DO believe it. and millions comfortably believe in both the christian god AND the validity of evolution. (the question of whether these are really compatible is the subject of another debate.) how about reform or progressive judaism? ever heard of that? or the muslim family that owns a kebab shop whose meat is NOT blessed ritually by an imam?

    there are lots of intelligent, thoughtful religious people, and to say that a religion can't mature is to deny that fact. a few very wicked people still believe in religions from the dark ages, but that doesn't apply to all religion. basically, the way religion can mature is for people to, rather than living their lives in servitude to it, use it to enhance their or others' lives. as i said earlier: if religion is to mature with modern society, and the wisdom which humanity requires to survive the next millennium, it must be in servitude to humankind, and not the other way around.

  3. #83
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    *it's not actually a strawman argument when atheist critics of religion call upon extremists to make a point. those extremists EXIST. no atheist will say "a christian once bombed an abortion clinic, so all christians are abortion bombers". (a similar sentiment might be made about muslims, but atheists CERTAINLY do not have a monopoly on criticism of islam.) but saying "a guy was impelled by his doctrine to bomb this abortion clinic, therefore there are some things seriously wrong with christian doctrines and the way they are being taught." that is a reasonable argument. more often, though, the extremists aren't called upon to make a point about the religion in general; they are called upon to say that this is happening, and it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed as the lunatic fringe. it's also to say to religious moderates "seriously, guys, there are religious extremists in your group, and you should not be ignoring or shoving them under the rug or claiming that they're not your problem. you defend the same doctrines that compel these people to behave the way they are behaving; you have to deal with this."

    if you find an atheist making a remark about loony extremists standing in for the whole group, it's usually nothing more than a joke or, if serious, a really immature, uneducated slur. that's not a strawman argument.

  4. #84
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I agree that religion can "mature" but what's the point of having religion at all anymore? Religion by default leads to magical thinking and I don't understand how magical thinking can be seen as a good thing.

  5. #85
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    *it's not actually a strawman argument when atheist critics of religion call upon extremists to make a point. those extremists EXIST. no atheist will say "a christian once bombed an abortion clinic, so all christians are abortion bombers". (a similar sentiment might be made about muslims, but atheists CERTAINLY do not have a monopoly on criticism of islam.) but saying "a guy was impelled by his doctrine to bomb this abortion clinic, therefore there are some things seriously wrong with christian doctrines and the way they are being taught." that is a reasonable argument. more often, though, the extremists aren't called upon to make a point about the religion in general; they are called upon to say that this is happening, and it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed as the lunatic fringe. it's also to say to religious moderates "seriously, guys, there are religious extremists in your group, and you should not be ignoring or shoving them under the rug or claiming that they're not your problem. you defend the same doctrines that compel these people to behave the way they are behaving; you have to deal with this."

    if you find an atheist making a remark about loony extremists standing in for the whole group, it's usually nothing more than a joke or, if serious, a really immature, uneducated slur. that's not a strawman argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia entry on timothy mcveigh
    In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.[89][90] In June, 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic.[91]
    welp, looks like all agnostics and atheists are crazy assholes who just wanna kill people. I think that atheists and agnostics need to take a serious look at what, in their doctrines, impels people to commit acts of terrorism and the way they are being taught.


    what I'm trying to say with this is that extremists are extremists and cannot be counted as part of the majority. As well, there are social, cultural and political factors that lead to extremists doing these things you find reprehensible. Because they are justified by doctrine taken out of context and snipped beyond recognition does not falsify the doctrines used.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  6. #86
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The problem with Christianity (and other religions) is that it's not only extremists who are doing things I find reprehensible.

    For example:
    "60% of evangelical Christians think that [homosexuality] is wrong, whereas 11% with no religious affiliation are against it" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societa...ity#Statistics)

  7. #87
    Leading Seaman sailor jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On shore leave
    Posts
    2,269
    Credits
    2,504
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    if you find an atheist making a remark about loony extremists standing in for the whole group, it's usually nothing more than a joke or, if serious, a really immature, uneducated slur. that's not a strawman argument.
    what is the difference? they result in the same animosity. they function as the same thing. a straw man is a straw man whether the person utilising it realises or not. These "jokes" function in the same way that poor religios doctrine does ie. it falsely informs and perpetuates the problem.

    as for your comment on poor religious doctrine, the point is that doctrine is being taught instead of discussed. If there was discussion about the Bible under the title "lets all remember that Jesus is suppossed to be perfect so anything we come up with that isnt perfect should be ignored" we wouldnt be playing chinese whispers with history and institutions and the true message christianity (this goes for all religions, including atheism) would be known.
    YO HO YO HO

    ceci n'est pas une signature

  8. #88
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    The problem with Christianity (and other religions) is that it's not only extremists who are doing things I find reprehensible.

    For example:
    "60% of evangelical Christians think that [homosexuality] is wrong, whereas 11% with no religious affiliation are against it" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societa...ity#Statistics)
    the difference is that Christians are morally impelled to confront people about this because, in their worldview, they're trying to save someone's eternal soul. When you remove the meaning of saving something worth more than someone's life, shit doesn't matter so much anymore.

    My distaste for that is tempered by their intentions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  9. #89
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I want to be clear here: if I lived in Europe, I would not give two shits about religion. But this is America. Every single president has been Christian. Obama, as far as I know, was the first president to even acknowledge that Atheists existed and were a part of American society. The only reason I even care is that in America, religious belief informs public policy.


    (source)

    The above is pretty consistent with what you guys are saying. There is a very large chunk of the poplulation that believes in God driven evolution (whatever that means). Still, fully 40% of the population believes that God created humans in their current form. I ask: how is a person who believes that informed enough to take part in an informed debate about anything? Maybe they're good people, maybe they're not. Like I said before, there's not really a correlation between morality and religion.

    In the United States population, 76% of people identify as Christian, while only 15% identify as not religious (source). In Congress, the disparity is much larger: not a single member of congress in either house identified as unaffiliated with a religion, and only six members do not specify a religion, which amounts to 1.1% of the 535 members of congress. That implies that the non-religious are completely unrepresented in congress. By contrast, 90.3% of congressman are Christian, and 7.3% are Jews, a total of 522 out of 535 congressmen (source). Nearly 98% of the people we elect to congress are informed by old testament theology. Only two congressmen are Muslim. In the face of those overwhelming odds, how does religion in this country just "grow up"?

    The inherent problem is that religious organizations are as much political organizations as spiritual ones. They donate to political campaigns. They endorse candidates. As implied by the above numbers, you absolutely have to appeal to a religious group to get elected, with few exceptions.

    And like any political organization, religious groups seek to hold on to their power. And religions gain and hold power by indoctrinating people and keeping them indocrinated. Something like evolution is a vitally important debate topic, and a very divisive issue, precisely because it is a playing field where the non-religious have direct evidence that what is written in the bible is not true. And in the face of that evidence, fully 40% of the adult population of the United States still believe that human beings were created by God in their current form. That is not some fringe lunatic group: if you break down the groups by belief, that is the largest. More people believe that than believe that God guided evolution.

    In addition to that, 55% of the adult population in this country believes that homosexuality is a sin (source). How exactly is that a positive thing in any way? Why do we need to hold on to this outdated way of looking at the world? There are just so many fucking people in this country who believe things simply because the bible deems it so. I realize that you (mainly Gwahir) are espousing that Christianity take the good, and leave the bad, but from a religious establishment perspective, isn't the goal to force the belief of all of it? Religion relies on fear. Many people are simply afraid to reject anything their pastor says to them. That's why you have 40% of people rejecting evolution, and 55% believing homosexuality is a sin.

    I will grant that the large number of people who believe in God guided evolution is encouraging. But I keep going back to that first group: the one that rejects evolution entirely. It's a scary thought that 40% of the adult population believes that. It really leads me to believe that religion in general is not a source of enlightenment, but an excuse to shield one's eyes from the truth. Free thought is a source of enlightenment. Intellectual curiosity is a source of enlightenment. Religion is an excuse to hide one's head in the sand and reject the evidence that exists in the world as to what's out there, what it all means, and how it came to be.

    Ultimately, my recurring question is this: how do we as a society reform religion to take only the good? Wouldn't it be easier to just reject the bible entirely as a work of fiction (or at best a flawed oral history in book form, with the acceptance that all supernatural occurrences are fictional), and then come up with better ways as a society to teach morality to our children?

  10. #90
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    the difference is that Christians are morally impelled to confront people about this because, in their worldview, they're trying to save someone's eternal soul. When you remove the meaning of saving something worth more than someone's life, shit doesn't matter so much anymore.

    My distaste for that is tempered by their intentions.
    Are you therefore saying their intentions are some sort of justification for their homophobia?

  11. #91
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    welp, looks like all agnostics and atheists are crazy assholes who just wanna kill people. I think that atheists and agnostics need to take a serious look at what, in their doctrines, impels people to commit acts of terrorism and the way they are being taught.
    i've said this many times, maybe not in this thread, but the difference is: atheism HAS NO DOCTRINES. it's a lack of doctrine. it just means there's something you don't believe in. atheism and science are mostly found in the same places, but atheism does not teach science. we're (i assume) all atheists about zeus, odin, and so on, without implying that there's some doctrine that goes along with not believing in zeus and odin -- people who call themselves atheists today are just atheistic about one more god.

    furthermore, the day that someone does something truly reprehensible in the name of atheism, or that can IN ANY WAY be linked to his atheism, i will be the first one to go whoa, guys, we have to deal with this. but it doesn't happen. show me i'm wrong here.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    what I'm trying to say with this is that extremists are extremists and cannot be counted as part of the majority. As well, there are social, cultural and political factors that lead to extremists doing these things you find reprehensible. Because they are justified by doctrine taken out of context and snipped beyond recognition does not falsify the doctrines used.
    this is apologism. how about the vatican's shielding of child molesters? is that being done by "fringe extremists", and what are the social and cultural and political factors that lead to it?

    what about comfortable, middle class families who abuse their children not sexually or physically, but mentally, because they're "dirty", or somehow not acceptable to their god?

    and what about the majority of america, who simply teach their children to be suspicious of science and education? i submit that it's a form of abuse to ruin someone's mind like that. let's call it intellectual abuse.

    the more moderate, sensible members of any one community -- whether it be a religious, national, ideological or cultural one -- need to be the first to come out decrying the actions of extremists and look at fixing things. instead, moderate religion has a real problem with denying, ignoring and distancing itself. when a passage in the bible literally says "gays are an abomination who should surely be put to death", and then someone quotes it when they kill gays, that's not taking a doctrine out of context. that's basic literacy and following clear instructions.

    there are grey areas, certainly. but frankly, a lot of the worst, most bloodthirsty, most "dark age" passages in any religious text aren't exactly "grey". you can make arguments for them to be non-literal, but what possible non-literal -- but still acceptable -- reading is there for "you shall surely put gays to death"? or the koran's many passages about killing infidels till there's nobody left but them? for religion to mature along with modern thought, its followers must be willing to examine these things, and answer them satisfactorily.

    and the only satisfactory answer is "they are bad passages, and we must excise them from our religion".

    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    I agree that religion can "mature" but what's the point of having religion at all anymore? Religion by default leads to magical thinking and I don't understand how magical thinking can be seen as a good thing.
    i don't disagree with you, myself. i just find it pointless to go around saying we need to get rid of religion. as i said, it's incredibly, achingly naive and it'll just depress you in the long run. i think we'll have more luck engaging with a more sympathetic dialogue with moderate religious people and helping them see how should be used to create the best possible world (as opposed to shaping our world according to religion). plus, in time, when religion has matured to the point where it doesn't so vastly hold back people's thinking, it'll just sort of fade away on its own.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    the difference is that Christians are morally impelled to confront people about this because, in their worldview, they're trying to save someone's eternal soul. When you remove the meaning of saving something worth more than someone's life, shit doesn't matter so much anymore.

    My distaste for that is tempered by their intentions.
    i agree with this. it doesn't make them bad people. it makes them good people infected with bad teachings.

  12. #92
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Not too much to add at the moment.

  13. #93
    A very manly muppet Mad Pino Rage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    2,865
    Credits
    3,041
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    i don't disagree with you, myself. i just find it pointless to go around saying we need to get rid of religion. as i said, it's incredibly, achingly naive and it'll just depress you in the long run. i think we'll have more luck engaging with a more sympathetic dialogue with moderate religious people and helping them see how should be used to create the best possible world (as opposed to shaping our world according to religion). plus, in time, when religion has matured to the point where it doesn't so vastly hold back people's thinking, it'll just sort of fade away on its own.

    I don't know if religion will ever fade away. Scientology popped up 50 years ago and is growing stronger every day. Cults will rise and fall and eventually one will break through as a new religion. Established churches will break off and form their own ideas (eg Westboro, FLDL). I don't know but I think growth rate for followers of major organized religions will always be on the rise. I would think that even if aliens visited Earth they would probably try to spread their religion, and I think that we would try to incorporate aliens as being created by God and fit that into religious texts.
    Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
    Albert Einstein

  14. #94
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Pino Rage View Post
    I don't know if religion will ever fade away. Scientology popped up 50 years ago and is growing stronger every day. Cults will rise and fall and eventually one will break through as a new religion. Established churches will break off and form their own ideas (eg Westboro, FLDL). I don't know but I think growth rate for followers of major organized religions will always be on the rise. I would think that even if aliens visited Earth they would probably try to spread their religion, and I think that we would try to incorporate aliens as being created by God and fit that into religious texts.
    heh. well. the way i see it, there are myriad ways human history and development can go. one is towards another "enlightenment", i guess, one which doesn't banish religion (which is absolutely inconceivable) but describes a state where the majority of people have a secular education at a very high standard -- consider that in a hundred years we have NO idea what kids will be able to learn and therefore what will be taught in schools. (I.Q. and general intelligence rises dramatically with every generation; this is a well documented and explainable fact.) i'm not saying religion will vanish, just that the tables will turn and it will, slowly but surely, shrink to a small portion of the power it has today.

    to me, that seems something of an inevitability. you KNOW the church is afraid to death of it happening -- that's why they try to halt scientific progress. with each scientific advancement, we need god a little less. all that's required to get religion to have less of a hold is education.

  15. #95
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    i'm not saying religion will vanish, just that the tables will turn and it will, slowly but surely, shrink to a small portion of the power it has today.

    to me, that seems something of an inevitability. you KNOW the church is afraid to death of it happening -- that's why they try to halt scientific progress. with each scientific advancement, we need god a little less. all that's required to get religion to have less of a hold is education.
    Well yeah. I'm not expecting religion to ever completely vanish. There will always be crazy, illogical people. I mean for fuck's sake there are still adults who honestly believe the earth is flat.

    That's what I meant when I said "we as a society needs to outgrow religion, and honestly I think we're over due". That's not a naive idea.

  16. #96
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Well yeah. I'm not expecting religion to ever completely vanish. There will always be crazy, illogical people. I mean for fuck's sake there are still adults who honestly believe the earth is flat.

    That's what I meant when I said "we as a society needs to outgrow religion, and honestly I think we're over due". That's not a naive idea.
    i mean it's naive to think it'll happen. over-optimistic. i'm not saying it shouldn't.

  17. #97
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    i mean it's naive to think it'll happen. over-optimistic. i'm not saying it shouldn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    to me, that seems something of an inevitability.
    I guess you don't understand what the word " inevitability" means or you are also calling yourself naive.

    Seriously gwahir, I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose but your constant condescending attitude is annoying.

  18. #98
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Now KT, he didn't mean nothin' by it.

    I do agree that religion will remain in some form. I genuinely think that it shouldn't, but fully recognize that it probably will. The question is how many people partake and what their participation looks like. An even bigger question is how much power religious organizations are able to keep and how much control they have over their members. Those are things that are near impossible to predict.

  19. #99
    Sexual Deviant Vengeful Scars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    My Ass
    Posts
    6,591
    Credits
    399
    Trophies
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    For all of recorded human history, religion has been there. I do not believe that non-believers will ever represent more than a large Minority.

    Just because Science says that a Big Bang occurred and Dinosaurs were here first, doesn't automatically negate the possibility of a God(remember, I'm an Atheist, not Agnostic). God and Science could possibly go hand in hand if mainstream religion would embrace it.
    lik dis if u cry evertim
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    yes
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Oh I was expecting a guide to making meth

  20. #100
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    you only half-quoted me, kt.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    i'm not saying religion will vanish, just that the tables will turn and it will, slowly but surely, shrink to a small portion of the power it has today.

    to me, that seems something of an inevitability.
    religious thought, i think, will eventually lose the strangehold it has over the developed world. but it won't go away.

    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Seriously gwahir, I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose but your constant condescending attitude is annoying.
    i will pass on your issue to the relevant support team and they will attempt to fix the issue as soon as possible. your ticket number is 2451.

  21. #101
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    gwahir i haven't forgot about you, i just routinely work 10-15hr days
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  22. #102
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    religious thought, i think, will eventually lose the strangehold it has over the developed world. but it won't go away.
    Yes. I agree with this. I suppose we're arguing over the extent. I firmly believe that if we're to survive and prosper as a species organized religion (in the developed world at least) will become a fringe element. And I want to believe that this will happen. However I am no psychic and cannot say with 100% accuracy that this will happen.


    I suppose what you're saying is that religion will simply become less powerful. It will however still be acceptable to belong to an organized religion.

    () yes, that's what I meant
    () no, that's not what I meant

    I'm not trying to argue with you here. I just want to understand how your point is different than mine.

  23. #103
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    (x) no, that's not what I meant

    i don't think religion will ever be considered fringe.

  24. #104
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    err sorry for some reason i misread the line above the checkbox options. yes, i agree with that statement. i don't agree with the first paragraph. right.

  25. #105
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    ok cool

  26. #106
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What does god mean to a person who doesn't believe in the biblical god? Will the idea of a biblical god persist even if much of the bible is rejected?

    I don't expect anybody to have those answers, just something to think about.

  27. #107
    Sexual Deviant Vengeful Scars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    My Ass
    Posts
    6,591
    Credits
    399
    Trophies
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    'God' can be the energy that gave the initial 'umph' to everything in existence. God could be the watch maker, and never repair anything.
    lik dis if u cry evertim
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    yes
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Oh I was expecting a guide to making meth

  28. #108
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If that's the case, why should we worship that god or even care that he exists? For a while I took God to mean the force that created the universe and designed it with the physical attributes such that life could exist. I don't necessarily discount the possibility, but ultimately I fail to see how that is different than no God at all, with the universe being created spontaneously and randomly.

  29. #109
    Sexual Deviant Vengeful Scars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    My Ass
    Posts
    6,591
    Credits
    399
    Trophies
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yrogerg123 View Post
    If that's the case, why should we worship that god or even care that he exists? For a while I took God to mean the force that created the universe and designed it with the physical attributes such that life could exist. I don't necessarily discount the possibility, but ultimately I fail to see how that is different than no God at all, with the universe being created spontaneously and randomly.
    If I were to accept the notion of god, then this would be the god I'd accept.

    One who doesn't give a shit, and is mostly not there. I don't see anyone playing the Sims in my life.
    lik dis if u cry evertim
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    yes
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Oh I was expecting a guide to making meth

  30. #110
    =========== KT.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    9,110
    Credits
    2,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What you guys are talking about is Deism. (Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

  31. #111
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    i expect coqauvin to have an interesting and useful answer to your question, yrogerg.

    (edit to clarify: that isn't sarcasm.)

  32. #112
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    Are you therefore saying their intentions are some sort of justification for their homophobia?
    pretty much, yeah. In their view, they have a moral imperative to improve the lives of people around them the only way they know how. If they didn't do it, they'd be knowingly damning someone's soul, which is also a social faux pas, I imagine. Given their choice, and put in their shoes, what choice would you make?

    If you're talking about the extreme gay haters, that's an outlier thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    i've said this many times, maybe not in this thread, but the difference is: atheism HAS NO DOCTRINES. it's a lack of doctrine. it just means there's something you don't believe in. atheism and science are mostly found in the same places, but atheism does not teach science. we're (i assume) all atheists about zeus, odin, and so on, without implying that there's some doctrine that goes along with not believing in zeus and odin -- people who call themselves atheists today are just atheistic about one more god.
    ok, so please understand that everything you quoted there is to be read with eyes fully rolled.

    Second, to say there's no finite link between atheism and science is to pay no attention to their culture. Who are the big names in bigtime atheism? Dawkins, Harris et al. Tell me there isn't a substitute set of rules to live by presented by them, in the name of something larger than them.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    furthermore, the day that someone does something truly reprehensible in the name of atheism, or that can IN ANY WAY be linked to his atheism, i will be the first one to go whoa, guys, we have to deal with this. but it doesn't happen. show me i'm wrong here.
    I note the distinct lack of doing something reprehensible in the name of science. The distancing your doing with this name is the same distancing moderate religious folk give to extremists with the same belief system. I don't think I need to name groups of people doing horrible things in the name of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    this is apologism. how about the vatican's shielding of child molesters? is that being done by "fringe extremists", and what are the social and cultural and political factors that lead to it?
    I can't name the political factors that gave the extremists power because I've never studied that history, but I'm sure if you look it up, you'd find out. The social and cultural factors that lead to shielding molestors was probably protecting the image of the church and trying to stymie the subsequent loss of adherents, even though it is distinctly against several doctrines in Catholicism.

    More important is the fact that the extremists in power do not constitute the majority of Christians, or even Catholics. The truly faithful, fundamental people are in much fewer quantity than you think.

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    what about comfortable, middle class families who abuse their children not sexually or physically, but mentally, because they're "dirty", or somehow not acceptable to their god?
    What about the ones that do that without mentioning God? Because they aren't acceptable to the neighbourhood, or the family values or whatever group of virtues the children are apparently not fulfilling? Are you saying it's somehow worse because religion is involved?

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    and what about the majority of america, who simply teach their children to be suspicious of science and education? i submit that it's a form of abuse to ruin someone's mind like that. let's call it intellectual abuse.
    What about specific Australians who make sweeping generalizations about population in an argument in the name of science and education? Let's not give into fallacies here.

    If you're saying it's a form of abuse to limit someone's education on general topics, you must understand this is a 2-way street. Given the choice, I'm sure there's a few who will end up turning away from science and education anyways. Also, you do realize that instead of religious fanatics, this also applies to blue-collar workers, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    the more moderate, sensible members of any one community -- whether it be a religious, national, ideological or cultural one -- need to be the first to come out decrying the actions of extremists and look at fixing things. instead, moderate religion has a real problem with denying, ignoring and distancing itself. when a passage in the bible literally says "gays are an abomination who should surely be put to death", and then someone quotes it when they kill gays, that's not taking a doctrine out of context. that's basic literacy and following clear instructions.
    would you give this moral imperative to moderates who live in an oppressive regime?

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    there are grey areas, certainly. but frankly, a lot of the worst, most bloodthirsty, most "dark age" passages in any religious text aren't exactly "grey". you can make arguments for them to be non-literal, but what possible non-literal -- but still acceptable -- reading is there for "you shall surely put gays to death"? or the koran's many passages about killing infidels till there's nobody left but them? for religion to mature along with modern thought, its followers must be willing to examine these things, and answer them satisfactorily.

    and the only satisfactory answer is "they are bad passages, and we must excise them from our religion".
    Cool. Can you give me a list of the passages so they are actually in some kind of context? I'm still falling back on my whole argument that this shit is all perpetrated by extremists who gain influence (fanaticism has this kind of effect), but these extremists have no voice when times are not so hard on a population


    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    i agree with this. it doesn't make them bad people. it makes them good people infected with bad teachings.
    i can't argue that.
    Last edited by coqauvin; 12-09-2011 at 08:42 PM. Reason: tags
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  33. #113
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yrogerg123 View Post
    If that's the case, why should we worship that god or even care that he exists? For a while I took God to mean the force that created the universe and designed it with the physical attributes such that life could exist. I don't necessarily discount the possibility, but ultimately I fail to see how that is different than no God at all, with the universe being created spontaneously and randomly.
    I don't know. You're narrowly defining what God means, then rejecting the definition as unsatisfactory. How did you come to this conclusion?

    Also, have you considered that maybe you cannot possibly comprehend what God really is? That it is quite literally beyond the scope of your mind, or the most educated, wisest minds on the planet?

    This is the fundamental problem. In order to disprove God, we must quantify him, but if that's going to happen, what kind of measure are you going to use? What gives your measure, either original or borrowed, the power to have any conclusive say about this? I'm going to italicize this, how do you know what God is?

    The image of God you presented wouldn't have me worshipping him either, for the record.

    edit: oh, this is the question


    Quote Originally Posted by yrogerg123 View Post
    What does god mean to a person who doesn't believe in the biblical god? Will the idea of a biblical god persist even if much of the bible is rejected?

    I don't expect anybody to have those answers, just something to think about.
    Well, I mean, I grew up believing in God, but I wasn't raised christian. My religious background is a hodgepodge of Native American spirituality and the Baha'i Faith. God, from what I learned, is pretty simple: un-fucking-knowable. This isn't just a "God works in mysterious ways" hand-wave, it's a definite fact - there's is something about God that exists beyond human comprehension. Maybe it's only in this phase of history, who knows.

    Instead of looking at the Bible to define God utterly, look at it as a stone in a mosaic.
    Last edited by coqauvin; 12-09-2011 at 08:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  34. #114
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coquavin
    Second, to say there's no finite link between atheism and science is to pay no attention to their culture. Who are the big names in bigtime atheism? Dawkins, Harris et al. Tell me there isn't a substitute set of rules to live by presented by them, in the name of something larger than them.
    As far as I know, there isn't. And if there is, it's of little consequence because there is no moral imperitive to listen to what they're saying and to act on it. They are speaking from their own sense of what is logical, and free will and an open mind allows a person to ignore what they say or to take on it as they please. In the case of a priest, or in a more real sense the pope, they are speaking for God and their word carries significantly more weight. If Dawkins says that I should follow the scientific method in all things I do, what reason do I have to care? What pressure is there to follow through?

  35. #115
    LooshiusLeftfoot yrogerg123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    533
    Credits
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What role does god play in your life? I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't have good answers to your questions. Just that in my mind, god is not an active being but a passive one. I chose the definition of god that I found conceivable to me.

    Proving or disproving the existence of god is a fools errand, and I have no interest in trying.

  36. #116
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yrogerg123 View Post
    As far as I know, there isn't. And if there is, it's of little consequence because there is no moral imperitive to listen to what they're saying and to act on it. They are speaking from their own sense of what is logical, and free will and an open mind allows a person to ignore what they say or to take on it as they please. In the case of a priest, or in a more real sense the pope, they are speaking for God and their word carries significantly more weight. If Dawkins says that I should follow the scientific method in all things I do, what reason do I have to care? What pressure is there to follow through?
    Empiricism, mon ami. The nature of science is to come to a hard-line, fundamental answer to every minute phenomenon. If Dawkins tells you to follow the scientific method because it is the optimal way to live, studied and extensively tested (presumably in a double-blind), the italics are your reason to care. You follow the empirical system because it is empirically proven to work. The pressure to follow through is all internal, as is the case in every religion.

    edit: The Pope and every priest do not speak with the voice of God (speaking for God). Their opinions on their religion are more important because they were taught and trained to interpret our writings of what God had said. Their words carry the weight of the expert opinion, same as Dawkins, because they are studied in their subject, not because they speak for God.
    Last edited by coqauvin; 12-09-2011 at 09:04 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  37. #117
    ))) joke, relax ;) coqauvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    the shwiggity
    Posts
    9,397
    Credits
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yrogerg123 View Post
    What role does god play in your life? I'm genuinely curious.

    I don't have good answers to your questions. Just that in my mind, god is not an active being but a passive one. I chose the definition of god that I found conceivable to me.

    Proving or disproving the existence of god is a fools errand, and I have no interest in trying.
    I have a rather peculiar worldview. First is to accept that the world runs and will continue to run whether I understand why it runs or not. If God is a part of that, it is beyond my comprehension. I am not part of any faith, although I haven't really been looking.

    Proving or disproving the existence of God is the nature of Atheism. I think I'm going to start capitalizing Atheism every time, now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nermy2k View Post
    yeah obviously we'd all suck our alternate universe dicks there was never any question about that
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear
    I don't know if Obama did anything to make that happen, but I do know that he didn't do anything to stop me from blaming him.

  38. #118
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    ok, so please understand that everything you quoted there is to be read with eyes fully rolled.

    Second, to say there's no finite link between atheism and science is to pay no attention to their culture. Who are the big names in bigtime atheism? Dawkins, Harris et al. Tell me there isn't a substitute set of rules to live by presented by them, in the name of something larger than them.
    i know it's not what you want to hear, but, yes. i mean, those people are prescribing certain things, and advising others, but (1) mostly they DESCRIBE problems without telling anyone what to do about them, and (2) there is simply no atheist tome or single text or whatever that all our beliefs come from. you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. you don't have to believe anything to be an atheist. you can believe in invisible unicorns and think that we are tiny sentient playthings living in a giant dollhouse owned by galaxy-sized space beings and still be an atheist. there are stupid atheists who know and care fuck all about science, but don't believe in god.

    you're right that, mostly, a person's atheism will stem from his or her intuitive trust in observable facts and knowledge gained by scientific means, but-- so what? that's to be expected, isn't it? it doesn't mean you have to believe anything to be an atheist.

    if you believe atheism necessarily comes with doctrine, you are factually wrong. you have fundamentally misunderstood the term.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    I note the distinct lack of doing something reprehensible in the name of science. The distancing your doing with this name is the same distancing moderate religious folk give to extremists with the same belief system. I don't think I need to name groups of people doing horrible things in the name of science.
    you know, i was going to mention, say, oppenheimer there, but i reconsidered. he recoiled from all the horror his work caused. go on, name one person who's ever purposefully done something bad in the name of science.

    people use science and technology in reprehensible ways all the time, but they don't act "in the name of science". they act out of greed or ambition or fear or hatred. you might say the same applies to religious evil people, only you know as well as me how easily i can find examples of people doing things "in the name of" religion -- whether there are any other substantive causal factors or not. here's your challenge, coq: find me an example, from real life, not sci fi, of someone purposefully doing something reprehensible in the name of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    I can't name the political factors that gave the extremists power because I've never studied that history, but I'm sure if you look it up, you'd find out. The social and cultural factors that lead to shielding molestors was probably protecting the image of the church and trying to stymie the subsequent loss of adherents, even though it is distinctly against several doctrines in Catholicism.
    you don't think that's religiously motivated? then, at best, it's motivated by a twisted sense of needing to protect one's community based on shared religion. of course it's to protect the image of the church and stymie the loss of adherents. they do that so "christianity's" power is not dimished. how does that make it any better? how does it make it not what i said? if you're saying the people at the TOP, the very peak of the catholic faith, are "extremists", i'm saying that, again, you've misunderstood the word. the people at the very highest place in the church are criminals who are deeply entrenched in a system of aiding and abetting child abusers. this has been very well documented.


    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    What about the ones that do that without mentioning God? Because they aren't acceptable to the neighbourhood, or the family values or whatever group of virtues the children are apparently not fulfilling? Are you saying it's somehow worse because religion is involved?
    i'm saying, you can't write off extremists as a loony fringe minority. they're all over the place. religion invites extremism, what with its "do this right or you'll go to hell" stuff. if i have a problem with religion, it's that. the main religions, at least, want you to be extremist. they ASK you to be. they want your whole life lived in service to your god's commands, even if your god's commands are horrifying and insane.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    What about specific Australians who make sweeping generalizations about population in an argument in the name of science and education? Let's not give into fallacies here.

    If you're saying it's a form of abuse to limit someone's education on general topics, you must understand this is a 2-way street. Given the choice, I'm sure there's a few who will end up turning away from science and education anyways. Also, you do realize that instead of religious fanatics, this also applies to blue-collar workers, right?
    huh? there's a difference between limiting someone's education and systematically, purposefully teaching them to be suspicious of any people or knowledge that contradicts their teachings. teaching them, for instance, that dinosaur bones are the work of the devil to fool us. remember, these people are a huge proportion of americans. not the majority, perhaps, but not a fringe minority. there are so many creationist museums that all do quite nicely for themselves.

    and then there are the presidential candidates who say "you know there's something wrong in america when gays can serve openly in the military but kids can't say prayers in school".


    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    would you give this moral imperative to moderates who live in an oppressive regime?
    uh... i guess not, no, but i'm not sure what you're getting at with the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    Cool. Can you give me a list of the passages so they are actually in some kind of context? I'm still falling back on my whole argument that this shit is all perpetrated by extremists who gain influence (fanaticism has this kind of effect), but these extremists have no voice when times are not so hard on a population
    ok, i'm going to do a quick google search, so take or leave these passages. "if a man lies with another man, he is an abomination and should surely be put to death" is nearly verbatim, from memory. that ALONE should be enough for you. but i'll include a few:

    "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

    Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT) (this one is just insane)

    When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

    "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 84:57)

    “I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Quran 8:12)

    and more, but i have to go. i can find more if you want, later. you are free to look up context and see how it tempers any of the hateful, violent insanity of the passages themselves.

  39. #119
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
    Proving or disproving the existence of God is the nature of Atheism. I think I'm going to start capitalizing Atheism every time, now.
    this represents a very frustrating refusal to listen, or I don't know what.

  40. #120
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,537
    Credits
    2,414
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    more, in case you wanted it

    If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

    Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

    If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

    Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

    If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

    edit: oh and the exact wording of the one about gays: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them." (lev. 20:13)

Tags for this Thread

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
  •