The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: atomiccat on August 04, 2008, 03:22:37 AM
-
On a different topic someone said most Libertarians are Atheist so i wanted to see what everyone religion!
-
Atheism isn't a religion.
-
Where's all of the above?
-
Missing: Discordianism
Missing: Church of the Subgenius.
Get with the program.
-
Missing: Thelema
Missing: Asatru
Missing: Druidism
-
there are waaaay to many to put Every single sub religion in there i just put down most of the Main ones, but i guess i will add a Other and all of the above category lol
and btw im a Druidism pagan
or my Druidism you mean animistic?
-
there are waaaay to many to put Every single sub religion in there i just put down most of the Main ones, but i guess i will add a Other and all of the above category lol
and btw im a Druidism pagan
or my Druidism you mean animistic?
Animistic? Shamans originated in every culture and religion, so you can't really call it a religion itself.
-
Why are atheism and no religion both up there? they mean exactly the same thing.
-
This is America, God damnit! Statistically, at least 40% of you all should be Catholic :D
-
Why are atheism and no religion both up there? they mean exactly the same thing.
I disagree completely.
-
Why are atheism and no religion both up there? they mean exactly the same thing.
I disagree completely.
I don't know what definitions you're using.
Atheism means lack of theism. Morality is a useful parallel. There is Immorality, Amorality, and morality, and there is anti theism, atheism, and theism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in any claim to a god. If your answer to the question "do you believe in god?" is anything other than yes, including I don't know, then you're an atheist.
Theres a common misconception that atheism means you believe there is no god. This is not the case.
Gnosticism and Agnosticism speak to what you claim to know.Theism and Atheism refer to what you believe.You can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or any other combination.I would class myself as a gnostic atheist under most meaningful defintions. I don't buy into absolute certainty, its a pretty useless concept.
Much like I can't 100% for sure say there aren't any unicorns on earth, the kind of knowledge that would allow me to say for sure that there are or not, is unattainable and not practical in real terms. So while I accept there is a minuscule chance of there being some super powerful creator/father figure to the universe, I have seen no reason to believe, and I actively disbelieve it based on a few facts:
a) Religions are clearly human inventions. only a mind shattered with cognitive dissonance could dismiss Zeus as a story but accept Jehovah as real
b) Pretty much every major religion makes claims about the nature of the universe that have been proven to be false
c) If a super powerful being existed there should be some sort of measurable effects. since there is a total of 0 measurable effects that can be contributed to any god, then all things being equal, something that cannot be measured in anyway is most likely nothing, rather than some inordinately more complex entity that produces the same effects as nothing but is in fact something.
While these facts are not sufficient to be absolutely certain that there are no god like entities, its enough for me to believe that most likely there are not at the current moment.
most religions work on : Look at this old book, this says what I believe is true so it must be, and the old classic, prove there is no god
even on brass statistics all religions fail. all major religions claim to be true, only one is possible to be true, all of them have the same explanation power, there are more than 2 religions in the world, ergo whatever one you pick you most likely have not picked the correct one, although more importantly:
no religion has ever met the burden of proof for the claims they make
-
To me "no religion" = nontheist which is not the same as an atheist.
-
To me "no religion" = nontheist which is not the same as an atheist.
what the fuck is a non theist? sounds like atheist to me
atheist is a responsive position to atheism. if you don't believe in god claims then you're atheist, its not about whatever you might believe about anything else, if you want to call yourself non theist aswell it doesn't change whether you're an atheist or not, although if you want to refer to atheist as something else it might make shit more complicated talking to atheists. The only thing that makes you not an atheist is being a theist of any kind. Saying I don't know whether there is a god is not answering the question of whether you believe it to be true or not. If you make a non committal stance then you still lack the belief in god and are still an atheist.
-
To me "no religion" = nontheist which is not the same as an atheist.
what the fuck is a non theist? sounds like atheist to me
atheist is a responsive position to atheism. if you don't believe in god claims then you're atheist, its not about whatever you might believe about anything else, if you want to call yourself non theist aswell it doesn't change whether you're an atheist or not, although if you want to refer to atheist as something else it might make shit more complicated talking to atheists. The only thing that makes you not an atheist is being a theist of any kind. Saying I don't know whether there is a god is not answering the question of whether you believe it to be true or not. If you make a non committal stance then you still lack the belief in god and are still an atheist.
A non theist is pretty much someone who may or may not believe in God, but doesn't give a damn about religions at all. Non theists are pretty much apathetic to the whole argument and prefer to ignore religious debates and do not identify with atheism, nor with any other religion. They are just themselves, whether they believe in God or not. I personally appreciate nontheists over atheists any day. They don't give me shit, I don't give them shit, we're all cool and don't worry about a thing, whereas most atheists I've come in contact with are pretty militant and repeatedly try to convert me to atheism.
-
Atheism isn't a religion.
Ditto
-
Atheism isn't a religion.
Ditto
I don't know though, from the way I've been approached by hardcore "atheists" in the past, I could have sworn they had far more "faith" in their atheism than I had in my Judaism. They tend to missionize the hell out of me, and from my perspective, Jews don't missionize anybody, they seemed worse than the hardcore evangelical christians and mormons who knock on my door from time to time asking me to convert to Jesus.
I guess from my perspective, anyone who tries to missionize is more religious than me, so when I get missionized by atheists, I see them as religious, whether they believe in "God" or not. To me, that's one point that makes the huge difference between being a "non theist" and being an "atheist".
-
None of those is my religion. And you depraved NOTA worshipers make me sick! :x
And, hey, Jew boy, change your sig image to something people can AdBlock (without hacking the plugin)! And stop stealing Wikimedia's bandwidth! Damn Jews...
-
I guess from my perspective, anyone who tries to missionize is more religious than me, so when I get missionized by atheists, I see them as religious, whether they believe in "God" or not. To me, that's one point that makes the huge difference between being a "non theist" and being an "atheist".
Anything else that comes out of the mouth other than "I don't believe in god" has nothing to do with atheism.
A lot of people like to appropriate the word, and since most hardcore anti-theist atheists wear it on their sleeve, you only associate 'atheist' with the evangelical kind.
When you're thinking of the strong anti religious atheists you're really thinking about anti-theists.
As for atheists trying to convert people,
when it comes to crunch all religions are believed first and foremost because a) your parents did and b)it feels good to
Theres a reason every single major religion tries to explain 2 things. What happens after you die and where the universe comes from.
People are scared of death and confused by existence. For as long as humans have been able to imagine stories, isolated cultural groups have made up their own gods. You would have to be fucking retarded not to realize that. We've even got to a point where the majority of the invented gods of the past are no longer believed in, yet we got fuckers STILL thinking the most recent ones are not the same as all the others, even though they all largely share the same "proofs"
An old ass book saying things that contradict all the other old ass books written by humans and a bunch of pseudo miracles like 'saving' people from cancer. Except that its admitted god would never actually do anything because if he did prove himself then you wouldn't have to believe, so the fact that he isn't proving himself is proof he exists.
HINT - Theres a reason all the burning bushes, global floods, rivers turning into blood, god and angels coming to earth dried up about the same time humans started collecting reliable scientific documentation on the world.
The one big plus atheists and anti-theists have over theists is that I've never EVER heard an atheist tell people to settle with believing for believings sake, or ever discourage rational inquiry, which organized religion does by the fucking shitload. Atheists generally persuade people to think and provide reasons for their beliefs. Theists just tell you to shut up and swallow their bullshit instead of anyone elses.
Most theists are fucking pussies at defending their beliefs as well, a self protecting mechanism of the god meme. The amount of times I get told to "find god and i will believe", or that god is math and science, and science is real so god exists, or that it says in the bible god is everything, and everything exists so thats proof god exists.
Shit, even the most modern religions are still sick fucking trips.
Heaven and hell from the bat is some fucked up shit. NO ONE deserves infinite punishment for finite crimes. We don't punish the worst child rapist murderers a fraction as bad as Jehovah plans to punish thieves and homosexuals. Stoning kids for insulting their parents, killing villages of non believers, every man women and child except the virgin girls which you get to keep as sex slaves. Though I suppose its how you interpret it, since every fucking religionist chooses, interprets and invents any bullshit they want to back up the beliefs THEY want to believe.
Just people to scared or stupid to accept 'we don't know' as an answer, and too afraid to accept that the warm fuzzy feeling when they think the holy spirit is entering them is just that, a feeling. Shit, the fact so many religions either have god as a man or an animal you find on earth should be a huge fucking tip off.
-
Other: I believe my peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are gods.
-
a) Religions are clearly human inventions. only a mind shattered with cognitive dissonance could dismiss Zeus as a story but accept Jehovah as real
What about pantheism?
-
a) Religions are clearly human inventions. only a mind shattered with cognitive dissonance could dismiss Zeus as a story but accept Jehovah as real
What about pantheism?
What about it?
from what I've heard its just a crutch for people who are too smart to buy into an old god, so they buy into this vague, spiritualist, metaphysical bullshit that doesn't really mean anything but it feels like it makes sense and I like believing it so why bother pinning it down eh?.
I've heard so many different definitions you'll have to say what you think of it as if you want a definite answer, but from my exposure usually its too vague to have any real meaning or is really wishy washy spiritualist/metaphysical super natural shit, but without any conscious deity to throw up a road block, its even easier to dive into and enjoy, and without any real concrete or inflammatory claims you never have to reconcile your own thoughts with some other douches beliefs.
In a way pantheism is the natural evolution. We no longer need preachers and shamans pumping us feel good magical bullshit, we can do it ourselves.
Buddhism is kind of on the same page aswell, even though its kind of the old god era. You don't have to fuck your thinking mind over so bad you think theres a santa claus of the universe, but you still get all the well meaning philosophical generalisations and you get afterlife and universal justice through reincarnation and karma.
-
Missing: Asatru
This is what I am, I didn't see it so I chose "neo-paganism/pagan" as the next best option.
-
Ive added a couple more options and you can change your vote
-
There isn't any way to change my vote.
-
Niggerfarian.
-
well i clicked the box that said allow users to change their vote, but i don't know how to do it myself
-
*dramatically chokes back a sob* I'll somehow push on... :(
-
there are waaaay to many to put Every single sub religion in there i just put down most of the Main ones, but i guess i will add a Other and all of the above category lol
Yet you had room for Pastafarians, who are newer and fewer in numbers than Subgenii and Discordians.
You should at least put Discordian/Subgenius as a single category, as one is a splinter group from the other.
Five Tons of Slack etc.
[youtube=425,350]Qt9MP70ODNw[/youtube]
-
Atheism isn't a religion.
Close enough. Call it a belief system or whatever semantic change necessary.
-
i put pastafarian in as a joke since they are just a made up religion
-
i put pastafarian in as a joke since they are just a made up religion
Again, so is Discordianism and Subgenius. And they're older and more popular.
-
Why is there a space for both Judaism, and Jewish? Whatever.
I cringe reading the assessments some of you guys make about religion, as I type from the computer lab of my Yeshiva (Rabbinical Seminary).
-
Humm...I put down atheist, but just may have to change it to subgenius. Let's see--I don't work, slack off all day...
-
Cosmic Gate is also missing from the list. I am Cosmic Gaytarian. Next shuttle leaves at the end date of this poll. Get the appropriate sneakers.
-
made up religion
Redundant.
-
Atheist/LaVeyan Satanist
-
Anti-traditionalist, pre-Nicaean Christian
-
what about ninja?
and pirate?
-
what about ninja?
and pirate?
Sorry Blackie, there's no space for "Moron"
-
The only Pastafarian I ever met was my good friend Baron Spaghetti. And if you're going to include them you've got to include the followers of Nostradanish the Zoropastrian...
-
Behold! O, Child of Hermes and Aphrodite... what secret father have you, be he ibis or baboon, who is greater than Al-Batin Al-Malik, Who begets not, nor was He begotten. For I present unto you the father of the tablet. The knower of the secret. The Kitab sirr al-asrar, whose merest operational parameters your Secretum secretorum is not worthy to calculate.
It is not Legend, but cold fact that all who decipher your cryptic scribbles pine their waking hours over not more than a translation of that which I, in good faith, do hold. Bend thy knee, O arrogant Hermaphrodite for it is we, the Ahli Sunnah wal Jama'ah, who drink the Will of the Hidden Master.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Secret_of_secrets_a.jpg/429px-Secret_of_secrets_a.jpg)
-
That's the craziest Sudoku puzzle I've ever seen!
-
(http://altreligion.about.com/library/graphics/goetia/seals1.jpg)
Have I told any of you that I love you today?
-
Have I told any of you that I love you today?
(http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-51568362379717_2014_49913895)
-
Have I told any of you that I love you today?
(http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-51568362379717_2014_49913895)
Oh man. I want that plushie.
-
Oh man. I want that plushie.
And the market provides (http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=019250N)
-
Pantheist in da house
-
Pantheist in da house
Me too, since I can't be a ninja :(
-
Pantheist in da house
Me too, since I can't be a ninja :(
I wonder what percentage of pantheist smoke herb?
-
Pantheist in da house
Me too, since I can't be a ninja :(
I wonder what percentage of pantheist smoke herb?
Well, considering in the most simplest of terms you could call me a pantheist as well, I'd say a fair majority of us.
I mean, weed is God, and God is weed, ya know? Why not?
-
Weed is good, too.
-
Weed is good, too.
Yep. Nothing else need be said.
-
Behold! O, Child of Hermes and Aphrodite... what secret father have you, be he ibis or baboon, who is greater than Al-Batin Al-Malik, Who begets not, nor was He begotten. For I present unto you the father of the tablet. The knower of the secret. The Kitab sirr al-asrar, whose merest operational parameters your Secretum secretorum is not worthy to calculate.
It is not Legend, but cold fact that all who decipher your cryptic scribbles pine their waking hours over not more than a translation of that which I, in good faith, do hold. Bend thy knee, O arrogant Hermaphrodite for it is we, the Ahli Sunnah wal Jama'ah, who drink the Will of the Hidden Master.
Lies! I read some of that kitab text last night and there was nothing in there, whatsoever. Hermes wins, again!
*Logic
If - There is nothing in Kitab sirr al-asrar
and - The oldest known sourse of the Emerald Tablet is in Kitab sirr al-asrar
Than - The Emerald Tablet is nothing
The ways of the heathen are vain.
-
There is no indication that the Tablet is in that book
The oldest documentable source for the text is the Kitab Sirr al-Asrar
The Tablet probably first appeared in the West in editions of the psuedo-Aristotlean Secretum Secretorum which was actually a translation of the Kitab Sirr al-Asar
A Latin translation of the Tablet came out by 1200, preceded by several Arabic versions.
a translation of the Kitab Sirr al-Asar
The oldest documentable source for the text is the Kitab Sirr al-Asrar, a pseudo-Aristotelian compendium of advice for rulers authored by Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani in around 800 AD.
Show me where the Emerald Tablet came from if not from the Kitab?
-
Pantheist is now available for your voting needs
-
Pantheist is now available for your voting needs
(http://th14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/lizza-y333/my%20smileys/th_confused-smiley-17428.gif)
-
Pantheist in da house
How are you defining it?
-
Pantheist in da house
How are you defining it?
the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
-
Pantheist is now available for your voting needs
(http://th14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/lizza-y333/my%20smileys/th_confused-smiley-17428.gif)
He's either really young or really stupid. I'm going to guess both.
-
Oh man. I want that plushie.
And the market provides (http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=019250N)
It does. Thank you.
-
Oh man. I want that plushie.
And the market provides (http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=019250N)
O.M.G.
(http://images.funagain.com/cover/medium/16585.jpg) (http://images.funagain.com/cover/medium/17875.jpg) (http://images.funagain.com/cover/medium/18469.jpg)
Three children, three versions of Munchkin Cthulhu
My Cthulhu-mas shopping is complete.
Not that I actually put my children through family game nights with a few classic Munchkin decks, or anything. That would be torture.
-
That would be torture.
'Sweet, sweet torture though.
-
Nonreligious, along the lines of the definition Joel provided earlier.
(Ever notice how all you people that change your handles never change your names?)
-
The point is that The Tablet of Hermes is not for historians to understand dates and times, as the confusion is intentionally designed by the occult philosophers in order to keep things interesting for the people attracted to this style of mystery.
Do not fret fair hermaphrodite. Your tablet is not the words of Al-Batin, for unbefitting is it for He to have the sun and moon as progenitors. Neither is it the words of Arabs, for the tablet is Aristotelean, or psuedo-Aristotelean. Merely do I speculate as to why your baboon god would not preserve his word in the original language. Is he so unlettered he must depend upon the scholars of Al-Batin? Is he so impotent he can't protect the tablet? I have met the baboon and he is but another slave.
-
The point is that The Tablet of Hermes is not for historians to understand dates and times, as the confusion is intentionally designed by the occult philosophers in order to keep things interesting for the people attracted to this style of mystery.
Do not fret fair hermaphrodite. Your tablet is not the words of Al-Batin, for unbefitting is it for He to have the sun and moon as progenitors. Neither is it the words of Arabs, for the tablet is Aristotelean, or psuedo-Aristotelean. Merely do I speculate as to why your baboon god would not preserve his word in the original language. Is he so unlettered he must depend upon the scholars of Al-Batin? Is he so impotent he can't protect the tablet? I have met the baboon and he is but another slave.
Give me a break. The Tablet goes much, much further back than Aristotle.
-
Give me a break. The Tablet goes much, much further back than Aristotle.
According to who? Everything I'm finding says that the text is amongst those works of Aristotle transmitted through Arabs to the West. Where is the older source?
-
Give me a break. The Tablet goes much, much further back than Aristotle.
According to who? Everything I'm finding says that the text is amongst those works of Aristotle transmitted through Arabs to the West. Where is the older source?
Fuck Aristotle and fuck your source.
-
Many eyes. Many, many eyes.
-
Fuck Aristotle and fuck your source.
Find me another.
I'll drop the yee olde speak... apparently people don't find it as entertaining as I do. I can't help it... I'm nostalgic.
It certainly would be interesting to find out who or how many people put the legend of the Emerald Tablet together.
So its a legend now?
So... why would the philosophers stick to one language when they could do a much better job by spreading the information in many languages, and in many other ways?
Philosophers diliberately spreading esoteric teachings in multiple forms and languages is completely different from transmitting an original document, presumably a tablet, through a foreign language such as Arabic, and translating all existent narrations from the foreign language because the original is lost. One a brilliant conspiracy by mages of the highest order... the other is an accident of history. It's very much like the New Testament in that way. No documents in the language of Jesus exist, what we have instead is a corpus of gospels in Greek, and from those they translate the message for the multitudes. This was not the genius of Jesus, but the necessity of scholars. And while the invisible gospel may be there for one who sees with two sights... the text is not inerrant.
It was through this diversity of multiplications in which cryptic meaning has spread throughout every society and civilization, infesting the planet with Hermes' tricks. You will find Hermes in Islam, too. In Islam, his is the Buraq from the Night Journey.
Hmm.... Yes... you are correct. Truth erupts in isolation... like Buddha under the lote tree of the farthest boundary. The baboon and ibis have no place in Islam. But the esoteric meaning is sound. The Message of the way forward and the path upward needs no tablet and no book. The Signs abound both within and without, above and below. But this is not the genius of some Hermetic author. The is al-Haq. The Sure Reality. What is the Sure Reality? And what will make you realise what the Sure Reality is?
The authentic text of the tablet is lost to history. What remains is only conjecture amongst guerrilla alchemists. But the Message of the Tablet is closer to you than your own jugular vein, engraved upon the heart of the Traveler. I suggest you look there.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c333/ArtBurn2005/Heart-2.gif)
-
Judaism is too close to Pantheism.
-
Atheism isn't a religion.
yes it is also bald is a hair color and transparent is a color
-
Pantheist in da house
How are you defining it?
the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
wtf does that mean?
God is everything?
Wheres your proof for this pantheist god?
I don't see any reason to inject god into anything if all you mean is existence, well except if it gives you a good feeling to be able to believe in some nebulous all encompassing deity.
-
Hehe.
-
Pantheist in da house
How are you defining it?
the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
wtf does that mean?
God is everything?
Wheres your proof for this pantheist god?
I don't see any reason to inject god into anything if all you mean is existence, well except if it gives you a good feeling to be able to believe in some nebulous all encompassing deity.
Yes God is EVERYTHING. Makes a lot more sense than the Christian Jesus thing or atheism. It's a different way of looking at the world. Instead of seeing the universe as bleak and transparent, you see it as something that is rich and full of opportunity.
-
Pantheist in da house
How are you defining it?
the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
wtf does that mean?
God is everything?
Wheres your proof for this pantheist god?
I don't see any reason to inject god into anything if all you mean is existence, well except if it gives you a good feeling to be able to believe in some nebulous all encompassing deity.
Yes God is EVERYTHING. Makes a lot more sense than the Christian Jesus thing or atheism. It's a different way of looking at the world. Instead of seeing the universe as bleak and transparent, you see it as something that is rich and full of opportunity.
If god is everything then its a useless definition. Everything is already a concept, and theres no need to plug in any supernatural bullshit on top of that because its a fairly simple premise.
Pantheism just seems like an excuse for rational minds to buy into the happy mysticism of religion without being too illogical.
If all you believe god is is everything, then I believe god exists too, because i believe everything that exists exists (duh), but you've just distorted the word god to be completely meaningless.
Anything I've missed?
-
Pantheist in da house
How are you defining it?
the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
wtf does that mean?
God is everything?
Wheres your proof for this pantheist god?
I don't see any reason to inject god into anything if all you mean is existence, well except if it gives you a good feeling to be able to believe in some nebulous all encompassing deity.
Yes God is EVERYTHING. Makes a lot more sense than the Christian Jesus thing or atheism. It's a different way of looking at the world. Instead of seeing the universe as bleak and transparent, you see it as something that is rich and full of opportunity.
If god is everything then its a useless definition. Everything is already a concept, and theres no need to plug in any supernatural bullshit on top of that because its a fairly simple premise.
Pantheism just seems like an excuse for rational minds to buy into the happy mysticism of religion without being too illogical.
If all you believe god is is everything, then I believe god exists too, because i believe everything that exists exists (duh), but you've just distorted the word god to be completely meaningless.
Anything I've missed?
Why does that make it meaningless?
-
I can't stand it anymore.
EVERY FUCKING THREAD.
-
If god is everything then its a useless definition. Everything is already a concept, and theres no need to plug in any supernatural bullshit on top of that because its a fairly simple premise.
Pantheism just seems like an excuse for rational minds to buy into the happy mysticism of religion without being too illogical.
If all you believe god is is everything, then I believe god exists too, because i believe everything that exists exists (duh), but you've just distorted the word god to be completely meaningless.
Anything I've missed?
Why does that make it meaningless?
Well we already have a word that means everything, why call it god, or a belief system, if not to invoke some sort of vaguely spiritual bullshit? especially since all other uses of god usually refer to some vague omni-max father/creator figure
-
I've been saying that in these threads for a while now.. that using the term "God" in such a generic way isn't doing any good.
-
:lol:
Let's have an atheist define god for us.
-
I've been saying that in these threads for a while now.. that using the term "God" in such a generic way isn't doing any good.
This sort of generic pantheism is becoming worryingly popular.
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit. But pantheism, you spend half your time trying to get the other person to give an exact definition, and even when they do, their beliefs on the issue are so nebulous and insubstantial, that theres nothing you could really say to get them to question why they feel a need to put belief in such a disturbingly vague idea.
When you can start getting into, god is math, or god is beauty, or god is the life force in the universe, its literally impossible to dispute such claims, because they rest on a distortion of definition, not any rational observation or hypothesis.
When people give themselves mental blank checks like this to believe for the sake of believing, dumb things happen. homeopathy, global warming, war on drugs. Granted pantheism is nowhere near as disruptive or destructive as these, but its emblematic of humans tendency to let emotion dictate their beliefs instead of rational thought.
-
I've been saying that in these threads for a while now.. that using the term "God" in such a generic way isn't doing any good.
This sort of generic pantheism is becoming worryingly popular.
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit. But pantheism, you spend half your time trying to get the other person to give an exact definition, and even when they do, their beliefs on the issue are so nebulous and insubstantial, that theres nothing you could really say to get them to question why they feel a need to put belief in such a disturbingly vague idea.
When you can start getting into, god is math, or god is beauty, or god is the life force in the universe, its literally impossible to dispute such claims, because they rest on a distortion of definition, not any rational observation or hypothesis.
When people give themselves mental blank checks like this to believe for the sake of believing, dumb things happen. homeopathy, global warming, war on drugs. Granted pantheism is nowhere near as disruptive or destructive as these, but its emblematic of humans tendency to let emotion dictate their beliefs instead of rational thought.
Can't you be concise?
-
I've been saying that in these threads for a while now.. that using the term "God" in such a generic way isn't doing any good.
This sort of generic pantheism is becoming worryingly popular.
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit. But pantheism, you spend half your time trying to get the other person to give an exact definition, and even when they do, their beliefs on the issue are so nebulous and insubstantial, that theres nothing you could really say to get them to question why they feel a need to put belief in such a disturbingly vague idea.
When you can start getting into, god is math, or god is beauty, or god is the life force in the universe, its literally impossible to dispute such claims, because they rest on a distortion of definition, not any rational observation or hypothesis.
When people give themselves mental blank checks like this to believe for the sake of believing, dumb things happen. homeopathy, global warming, war on drugs. Granted pantheism is nowhere near as disruptive or destructive as these, but its emblematic of humans tendency to let emotion dictate their beliefs instead of rational thought.
Can't you be concise?
about wat?
-
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit.
And atheists wonder why I call their attitudes as intolerant as any born-again bible thumper that they complain about.
-
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit.
And atheists wonder why I call their attitudes as intolerant as any born-again bible thumper that they complain about.
BUT IT'S NOT A RELIGION!!!11
-
god exists because it's mentioned in a fucking book, ain't ya heard?
-
god exists because it's mentioned in a fucking book, ain't ya heard?
That's one opinion, certainly.
-
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit.
And atheists wonder why I call their attitudes as intolerant as any born-again bible thumper that they complain about.
BUT IT'S NOT A RELIGION!!!11
Sure Seems like one to me.
-
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit.
And atheists wonder why I call their attitudes as intolerant as any born-again bible thumper that they complain about.
My attitude is not an "atheist" attitude. Atheist means you don't believe in any claims of any gods, thats it. Its a responsive position to a claim. Now my personal preference to belittle theists has nothing to do with my non belief in god claims. Non belief cannot be the basis for any action.
If you think you have justification for zeus, allah, jehovah, whoever, then I'll gladly discuss the matter with you, but the fact 100% of religious people I have talked with have used extremely substandard thinking allows me to mock them with a clear conscience. I am aware this is not a persuasive method, but I find the averages theist disregard for logic, and their unwillingness to defend their beliefs very distasteful. I freely admit that I am intolerant to theists, I care deeply about rational thought and any positions thats seem to vehemently appose free thought on any issue are in my contempt.
Any theists want to debate me, throw me a PM and I'll gladly give you an IM address you can talk to me on.
-
With a standard, zeus, jehovah, allah, god, its pretty easy to provide rational explanation for why its bullshit.
And atheists wonder why I call their attitudes as intolerant as any born-again bible thumper that they complain about.
BUT IT'S NOT A RELIGION!!!11
Sure Seems like one to me.
Well, you're wrong.
Atheism is a religion if bald is a hair color.
Atheism =! anti-theism
Atheism is lack of belief in any theist claims, NOT belief that a god does not exist.
get with the program.
I'll throw open my offer again. Any theists with claims they think they have justification for, I really want to hear from you. Now I believe that your beliefs are irrational, and I will not do you the disrespect of pretending you are rational in order to persuade you of my position. but if you want someone to challenge your beliefs in a fair and rational way, let me know.
-
My attitude is not an "atheist" attitude. Atheist means you don't believe in any claims of any gods, thats it. Its a responsive position to a claim. Now my personal preference to belittle theists has nothing to do with my non belief in god claims. Non belief cannot be the basis for any action.
It is an attitude that I have witnessed many a time by many atheists I have met online and in person, whatever you may like to call it.
If you think you have justification for zeus, allah, jehovah, whoever, then I'll gladly discuss the matter with you
Why on earth would you think that I would need to justify any of my beliefs to you?
but the fact 100% of religious people I have talked with have used extremely substandard thinking allows me to mock them with a clear conscience. I am aware this is not a persuasive method, but I find the averages theist disregard for logic, and their unwillingness to defend their beliefs very distasteful. I freely admit that I am intolerant to theists, I care deeply about rational thought and any positions thats seem to vehemently appose free thought on any issue are in my contempt.
Any theists want to debate me, throw me a PM and I'll gladly give you an IM address you can talk to me on.
I care about reason and free thought also, but with your attitude of intolerance why would I be interested in chatting with you about this? Like you said it is not a persuasive method but not only is it that but it also comes off as rude and intolerant, which it is. So it cuts off any interest in someone who holds a different understanding than you from wanting to communicate.
-
And by the way, what is most amusing is that how you tout your self as oh-so-intellectual and so much more of a reasoner than theists and yet your attitude is virtually identical to several rabid born again Christians that I have met. Different side of the same narrow view coin.
-
My attitude is not an "atheist" attitude. Atheist means you don't believe in any claims of any gods, thats it. Its a responsive position to a claim. Now my personal preference to belittle theists has nothing to do with my non belief in god claims. Non belief cannot be the basis for any action.
It is an attitude that I have witnessed many a time by many atheists I have met online and in person, whatever you may like to call it.
If you think you have justification for zeus, allah, jehovah, whoever, then I'll gladly discuss the matter with you
Why on earth would you think that I would need to justify any of my beliefs to you?
You don't. But one of the best ways we test our beliefs is by having people who disagree with us talk about it.
I care about reason and free thought also, but with your attitude of intolerance why would I be interested in chatting with you about this? Like you said it is not a persuasive method but not only is it that but it also comes off as rude and intolerant, which it is. So it cuts off any interest in someone who holds a different understanding than you from wanting to communicate.
I already said I am intolerant. I believe intolerance is only a negative attribute if it is intolerance against positive or neutral attributes. Murder, dishonesty, these things most normal people are intolerant against. I believe all theists claims I have ever encountered to be illogical, and encourage people to believe on emotion, and actively shutter reasoned inquest. I am aware that to someone who believes in theist claims, and does not believe themselves to be irrational (who does), then this is an inflammatory remark, but you are already assuming that you are correct in order for what I say to be egregious. You have not made the test to actually see if I am right, you merely have my claim, not my justification, and I am not in the business of lying about my opinions to influence people I otherwise respect.
It is a comfortable position to not want to discuss things with someone who opposes you, my conscience will not allow me to be dishonest and claim that I do not believe your beliefs to be silly. Now its perfectly fine if you don't want to talk to me, but if you assume I have good reason then you may gain some insight into your own belief if you take the time to discuss it with me, no matter how idiotic and aggressive I may appear.
-
And by the way, what is most amusing is that how you tout your self as oh-so-intellectual and so much more of a reasoner than theists and yet your attitude is virtually identical to several rabid born again Christians that I have met. Different side of the same narrow view coin.
I disagree. I believe all theists I have encountered have made faulty arguments, I believe mine to be correct, and you have no justification to believe that I am wrong or being just as irrational as 'rabid born again Christians' until you have heard my reasons.
Thats agnostic. "Whether they believe in god or not" drops it on its head, and kinda invalidates the rest of your statement. Remove it, and you got agnosticism.
Not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I'll reiterate my position since there seems to be alot of confusion over the terminology.
A/gnosticism refers only to what you claim to know. An agnostic is someone who believes a claim to be unknowable/unprovable. You can be an agnostic theist (a theist who believes in god, but claims it would be impossible to know for sure), or an agnostic atheist (an atheist who does not believe in a god, but claims it is impossible to know). A gnostic claims to have the knowledge. I don't know any atheists who claim to be 100% gnostic atheists, though many claim that under reasonable circumstances it is fair to say that they know there isn't one, much like, i can say fairly well, that I know there are no such thing as leprechauns, but as I do not have complete knowledge of the universe, I cannot say for sure there is not one on some distant planet.
When people say they are agnostic, they are still atheist. Atheist only meaning that you do not accept the claim to be true, "I don't know", is still a lack of belief. A lot of the confusion arises as many atheists claim to believe that there is no god. Not the same thing as not believing there is a god.
that clear it up?
-
Fatcat, discussion is kind of moot when all the other person is doing is trying to tell the other how wrong they are and prove it. Especially in dealing with things like belief or non-belief in metaphysics, spirituality and the existence of, or not, of gods.
Over my life I've had this chat with born-again Christians and other hard-core Christians and atheists. The other person already has it all figured out (in their mind) and is trying to make me think the way they do or prove that I am wrong in some way. Thanks but no thanks. I'm done trying to have down-to-earth conversations with someone who is narrow-minded and isn't interested in really listening but wants to be "right".
-
Fatcat, discussion is kind of moot when all the other person is doing is trying to tell the other how wrong they are and prove it. Especially in dealing with things like belief or non-belief in metaphysics, spirituality and the existence of, or not, of gods.
Over my life I've had this chat with born-again Christians and other hard-core Christians and atheists. The other person already has it all figured out (in their mind) and is trying to make me think the way they do or prove that I am wrong in some way. Thanks but no thanks. I'm done trying to have down-to-earth conversations with someone who is narrow-minded and isn't interested in really listening but wants to be "right".
what?
I care about having correct beliefs. I believe my beliefs are correct, but I will not claim I know that your justification is incorrect when I don't know what that is.
You haven't even given me a chance, but you claim that I am not interested in listening and that I would not talk to you in a fair and reasonable manner.
I don't claim that I know you're wrong. I don't know why you believe in whatever god claim you do, if you tell me your justification then I can speak to what that is. My propensity to be brutally honest about my opinion of other beliefs does not disable me from being rational or fair. You can claim that I will be narrow minded and uninterested during our discussion, but as you have never tried then it is just as irrational as if I were to claim your reasoning is incorrect without hearing it.
If you agree to debate with me one on one, I will give you my reasons why I think there is not rational justification to believe in any theist claim I have encountered, if you give me your justifications for your belief, then I will try my best to give you my honest opinion on that justification. I will not claim to be right merely by my current belief, and i will not claim that you are wrong merely on your belief. I deal on reasons and justification, however, I don't think theres much I can say that will make you believe I will treat you fairly so I understand I am probably wasting my time with this typing.
-
Go and Google define: religion
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices often organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law
A system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of ones body
a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power
Fatcat is unquestionably correct in his claim that atheism is NOT a religion.
However, belief in God's nonexistence is faith, while nonbelief in God's existence is merely agnosticism.
-
If you can think of it from a dogmatic perspective, it IS religion to you. be it secular humanism, or athiesm.
-
If you can think of it from a dogmatic perspective, it IS religion to you. be it secular humanism, or athiesm.
can people stop misusing the word atheism?
you can't think of atheism from any perspective because it is a LACK of belief.
picture a belief in a god, then remove that belief, THAT'S ATHEISM.
you're an atheist even if you've never heard of the idea of gods so long as you lack the belief in them.
being an atheist does not mean you think ANYTHING. all it means is you DON'T believe in a god. rocks are atheist, my cat is atheist, etc etc
being against theism is NOT an atheist position, it is an anti-theist position
likewise believing there is no god is NOT an atheist position, even though a large chunk of atheists believe it.
just like amoral means neither moral or immoral, atheist means neither theist or anti theist.
that little A at the start of atheism means something. theres theism, and theres A-theism, it means lack of theism
how many times do I have to say this?
-
Fatcat is correct atheist is not a religion.
-
If you can think of it from a dogmatic perspective, it IS religion to you. be it secular humanism, or athiesm.
can people stop misusing the word atheism?
you can't think of atheism from any perspective because it is a LACK of belief.
picture a belief in a god, then remove that belief, THAT'S ATHEISM.
you're an atheist even if you've never heard of the idea of gods so long as you lack the belief in them.
being an atheist does not mean you think ANYTHING. all it means is you DON'T believe in a god. rocks are atheist, my cat is atheist, etc etc
being against theism is NOT an atheist position, it is an anti-theist position
likewise believing there is no god is NOT an atheist position, even though a large chunk of atheists believe it.
just like amoral means neither moral or immoral, atheist means neither theist or anti theist.
that little A at the start of atheism means something. theres theism, and theres A-theism, it means lack of theism
how many times do I have to say this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the belief that there is no god is a belief...if you want to get that specific. I think no belief would be...agnosticism...not necessarily believing anything in particular.
-
Fatcat, discussion is kind of moot when all the other person is doing is trying to tell the other how wrong they are and prove it. Especially in dealing with things like belief or non-belief in metaphysics, spirituality and the existence of, or not, of gods.
Over my life I've had this chat with born-again Christians and other hard-core Christians and atheists. The other person already has it all figured out (in their mind) and is trying to make me think the way they do or prove that I am wrong in some way. Thanks but no thanks. I'm done trying to have down-to-earth conversations with someone who is narrow-minded and isn't interested in really listening but wants to be "right".
Now you know why I don't debate him...
about ANYTHING.
-
my cat is atheist
You know what your cat thinks?
-
Jim Croce was god. . . and now he's dead so we're all fucked.
-
Fatcat, whomever makes a positive statement ( I believe xyz.....) has a burden of proof on them.
Religious people make a positive statement, and justify it.
Athiests also make a positive statement. They also justify it, meaning they believe something.
Its really the agnostics that can claim they dont believe in anything dogmatically
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the belief that there is no god is a belief...if you want to get that specific. I think no belief would be...agnosticism...not necessarily believing anything in particular.
Did you read what I wrote?
Atheism and theism refer to forms of belief. Theism is the belief in a religion, atheism is a lack of that belief. not belief in the opposite claim.
not believing in god =! believing there is no god
a/gnostic refers to forms of knowledge. If you say "i dont know" to the question, "is there a god?", you still lack the belief in god.
knowledge is a subset of belief. you can believe in something and not claim to know it 100%
agnostic means i don't know / it can't be known depending on your definition.
Most theists are gnostic theists, i.e. they believe in god and claim they know it for a fact.
my cat is atheist
You know what your cat thinks?
Its not possible for my cat to have a belief in god. No belief in god = atheist.
Fatcat, whomever makes a positive statement ( I believe xyz.....) has a burden of proof on them.
Religious people make a positive statement, and justify it.
Athiests also make a positive statement. They also justify it, meaning they believe something.
Its really the agnostics that can claim they dont believe in anything dogmatically
Atheism is a responsive position to claims of god. Atheism is not a positive statement.
Now if you want to use a different definition, then fine, but under standard etymology the A suffix usually means lack of, amoral for example is not the same as immoral
Now I don't know any atheist who claim to know for an absolute certainty that no god exists, much like I can't claim to know to an absolute certainty there isn't a unicorn in existence on some Micronesian island somewhere, but in day to day uses of knowledge, much like I claim that I know there is no such thing as unicorns and leprechauns, I claim to know there are no gods, as I have not seen sufficient evidence to believe such a claim, but like you said, it would require some sort of proof or evidence to claim to 100% certainty that there are no gods, namely an absolute knowledge of the universe/existence, which I don't have and likely never will.
-
my cat is atheist
You know what your cat thinks?
Its not possible for my cat to have a belief in god. No belief in god = atheist.
Answer the question I asked.
-
my cat is atheist
You know what your cat thinks?
Its not possible for my cat to have a belief in god. No belief in god = atheist.
Answer the question I asked.
I thought it was implicit in my statement. With current technology it is impossible for me to know what my cat thinks, but I don't need to in order to establish whether it has certain beliefs. I know it doesn't have a complex enough brain to conjure any sort of concept like a god, so therefore by its lack of ability to believe in such a claim, it still lacks the belief, ergo my cat = atheist. I do not believe it is possible for my cat to believe there is a god, or believe there is no god, as everything I know about biology and evolution tells me that its extremely unlikely cats are able to think of any abstract concepts. Not being able to think in words drastically reduces your capacity to think of anything beyond basic sensation and impulse.
I understand the atheist/agnostic semantics debate is a tedious one, but its an important distinction to make, especially since a lot of people view agnosticism to be the superior intellectual position, and those foolish atheists are just as dumb as the theists.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the belief that there is no god is a belief...if you want to get that specific. I think no belief would be...agnosticism...not necessarily believing anything in particular.
Did you read what I wrote?
Sure did. Noticed you repeated yourself too.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the belief that there is no god is a belief...if you want to get that specific. I think no belief would be...agnosticism...not necessarily believing anything in particular.
Did you read what I wrote?
Sure did. Noticed you repeated yourself too.
I thought I made it clear that Atheism is a lack of belief, and a/gnosticsm refers to claims on knowledge, no?
I am aware I look like a gigantic asshole with my repetitive semantics, but I'm just trying to clear up the confusion in terminology people have when it comes to beliefs.
-
I don't believe in any god or gods, but I really don't care either way. Prove why I should care and I'll do so. So: No Religion/Not Religious for me :)
-
I don't believe in any god or gods, but I really don't care either way. Prove why I should care and I'll do so. So: No Religion/Not Religious for me :)
I think you should care.. religion has served to stifle scientific and philosophical progress and to control masses of individuals. It encourages judging other people, enforcing certain moral standards - all according to some moral code handed down by something up in the sky.
No matter how it's tweaked it simply cannot make sense.
-
Blanket statements are so much fun!
-
Blanket statements are so much fun!
Woe unto me for I hath neglected to reveal the Blessings of Faith.
Saved souls, good deeds, community good.. whoopdeedoo. Good people exist with no involvement in church or spirituality whatsoever.
Would you like to make sense of it all for us?
-
Blanket statements are so much fun!
Woe unto me for I hath neglected to reveal the Blessings of Faith.
Saved souls, good deeds, community good.. whoopdeedoo. Good people exist with no involvement in church or spirituality whatsoever.
Would you like to make sense of it all for us?
Sure. The bold is a non-sequitor. You're basically claiming that the sole aim and/or goal of religion is to turn people good. Which, quite a few of them do purport - but not all.
How many times do we have to go over this, Oh Wise One?
-
How many times do we have to go over this, Oh Wise One?
What exactly are we going over?
-
How many times do we have to go over this, Oh Wise One?
What exactly are we going over?
You continually claim that all religions have the same goal, or purpose. I'm telling you that you're wrong. We've had this discussion before.
-
I don't believe in any god or gods, but I really don't care either way. Prove why I should care and I'll do so. So: No Religion/Not Religious for me :)
I think you should care.. religion has served to stifle scientific and philosophical progress and to control masses of individuals. It encourages judging other people, enforcing certain moral standards - all according to some moral code handed down by something up in the sky.
No matter how it's tweaked it simply cannot make sense.
Not always...Judaism is and to my knowledge has always been pro-science. I can't think of any part of history where Judaism stifled scientific progress. That certainly is the case with Islam today (at least in much of the Middle East) and definitely was in Middle Age Christianity however. I don't think its fair to say that religion in itself halts scientific progress.
-
I don't believe in any god or gods, but I really don't care either way. Prove why I should care and I'll do so. So: No Religion/Not Religious for me :)
I think you should care.. religion has served to stifle scientific and philosophical progress and to control masses of individuals. It encourages judging other people, enforcing certain moral standards - all according to some moral code handed down by something up in the sky.
No matter how it's tweaked it simply cannot make sense.
Not always...Judaism is and to my knowledge has always been pro-science. I can't think of any part of history where Judaism stifled scientific progress. That certainly is the case with Islam today (at least in much of the Middle East) and definitely was in Middle Age Christianity however. I don't think its fair to say that religion in itself halts scientific progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest_in_642 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest_in_642)
In 642 after the Byzantine army was defeated at the Battle of Heliopolis, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library. He gave the famous answer: "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." The Arabs subsequently burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers. It was also said that the Library's collection was still substantial enough at this late date to provide six months' worth of fuel for the baths.
The point is, religious people can do good things, but religion can't make anyone do anything they couldn't do without religion, and since so many religions make a point of arbitrary rulings, and discourage scientific inquest, then at best its useless and at worst its harmful.
Even now in the 21st century, religion is used to discourage rationality.
Faith based initiatives, abstinence programs, preachers in Africa telling their followers that AIDS is a homosexual disease, and that condoms make you infertile, genetic engineering, stem cell research, cloning have all been opposed by certain religious sects, kansas school boards encouraging people to consider 'intelligent design' over evolution.
Not to mention that the Islamic, Christian and Jewish holy books all sanction slavery (http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm), rape (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm), murdering people for thought crimes (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm) and many more horrible actions (http://www.evilbible.com/).
Name one benefit religion brings that cannot be achieved by secular means.
-
Name one benefit religion brings that cannot be achieved by secular means.
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
What I mean is, is that religion, and for that matter, spirituality, is a personal preference. Just like homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual preferences, religion is a certain paradigm preference. We all have our own paradigms - our own set of mores, morals, beliefs, and values (and perceptions of reality) - that are different from everyone else's, but religions are really just a subset of paradigms. They unify and centralize certain paradigms (which is why I am not religious myself). There's nothing wrong with any of this - it's all preference. Human beings always see reality how they want to, and having a personal preference in what you believe is just how things are. Some people take it to the extreme, and some people don't.
No one needs religion, just like they don't need governments. A religion is just a unified way of perceiving the Universe and how it works, like governments are a unified method of protecting rights and property.
-
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
That is a great line... poetry my friend...
-
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
What I mean is, is that religion, and for that matter, spirituality, is a personal preference. Just like homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual preferences, religion is a certain paradigm preference. We all have our own paradigms - our own set of mores, morals, beliefs, and values (and perceptions of reality) - that are different from everyone else's, but religions are really just a subset of paradigms. They unify and centralize certain paradigms (which is why I am not religious myself). There's nothing wrong with any of this - it's all preference. Human beings always see reality how they want to, and having a personal preference in what you believe is just how things are. Some people take it to the extreme, and some people don't.
No one needs religion, just like they don't need governments. A religion is just a unified way of perceiving the Universe and how it works, like governments are a unified method of protecting rights and property.
This whole reply was extremely well thought out and insightful. Well done Josh.
-
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
What I mean is, is that religion, and for that matter, spirituality, is a personal preference. Just like homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual preferences, religion is a certain paradigm preference. We all have our own paradigms - our own set of mores, morals, beliefs, and values (and perceptions of reality) - that are different from everyone else's, but religions are really just a subset of paradigms. They unify and centralize certain paradigms (which is why I am not religious myself). There's nothing wrong with any of this - it's all preference. Human beings always see reality how they want to, and having a personal preference in what you believe is just how things are. Some people take it to the extreme, and some people don't.
No one needs religion, just like they don't need governments. A religion is just a unified way of perceiving the Universe and how it works, like governments are a unified method of protecting rights and property.
This whole reply was extremely well thought out and insightful. Well done Josh.
Thanks.
Paradigms can be a lot of fun. Ask any chaos magician (which I'm not).
-
Name one benefit religion brings that cannot be achieved by secular means.
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
no. sexuality is just a preference, it supports nor supplies any ideas. Believing in a religion requires you to believe things, its not just a taste or preference. Every religion requires you to accept or deny certain factual claims about reality. beliefs =! preference. I already outlined the hazards of religion, how it has indisputably been used to destroy and restrict scientific research.
You completely failed to answer what I said.
My point was:
1. Religion has facilitated negative acts that would have otherwise not occurred. There's no reason to burn books/lock up people that dispute what the Koran or the Bible says if you did not believe what those books say.
2.There is nothing positive about religion that you can't get via non religious means. Peace of mind, moral guidance, hope, every single claim I've heard for the benefits of religion can be found without having to believe in supernatural claims.
3. From points 1 + 2, at best religion is no more positive than non-religion, at worst it is harmful. Even if you don't accept religious belief has EVER led to bad choices (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html), then at best it is still only as good as non religion, which makes it a useless set of beliefs. Not that beliefs need to have a use, I'm just making the point.
If you want to believe in some improvable deity, then go ahead, I never made the claim that you shouldn't be allowed to believe in whatever you want, this was not my point. Since most religions deal with inherently intangible and ineffectual subjects (souls, gods, heavens and hells that can't be reached in the 'living' universe, anything that can't actually be measured), it seems pretty futile to me to spend any amount of time considering something that cannot be proved, and has no actual effect on your life that can't be achieved via non religion. The very fact that to accept one religion you have to dismiss dozens of others which have exactly the same amount of proof is enough to make the whole thing seem very asinine.
Now answer my original point please. One benefit that religion brings that cannot be gained by non religious means.
-
The very fact that to accept one religion you have to dismiss dozens of others which have exactly the same amount of proof is enough to make the whole thing seem very asinine.
Not all religions require you to dismiss other religions. This is exactly the issue that brought me to an impasse of discussion when dealing with born again Christians specifically. I would explain to the BAC that I, in fact, believe that their god exists, it's just that Yahweh isn't one that I hold faith in. Then the BAC would either say that my gods don't exist because there is only one god (theirs) in their view or mine are "demons".
Since said BAC was not interested in hearing any other viewpoints, and was more interested in trying to show me how I was bad for my views and that I was going to burn in a fiery pit somewhere. Impasse. Also, not worth my time trying to talk with said BAC about these things.
-
The very fact that to accept one religion you have to dismiss dozens of others which have exactly the same amount of proof is enough to make the whole thing seem very asinine.
Not all religions require you to dismiss other religions. This is exactly the issue that brought me to an impasse of discussion when dealing with born again Christians specifically. I would explain to the BAC that I, in fact, believe that their god exists, it's just that Yahweh isn't one that I hold faith in. Then the BAC would either say that my gods don't exist because there is only one god (theirs) in their view or mine are "demons".
Since said BAC was not interested in hearing any other viewpoints, and was more interested in trying to show me how I was bad for my views and that I was going to burn in a fiery pit somewhere. Impasse. Also, not worth my time trying to talk with said BAC about these things.
The only religion that could not contradict another religion, is one with exactly the same attributes. if you don't believe you have to dismiss other religions for your specific religious belief to be true, then you are dismissing the religion of the people who claim to believe that their is correct religion and no other religions are. If other people don't dismiss your belief then you are both agreeing on the same concept in that aspect. Whether you believe you are dismissing them or not, if your belief contradicts with their belief, then they both cannot be in reality. You think their supernatural entity/s can exist/is part of a whole with other gods, they think there is only one god in one form nothing else, both of you can't be right. Now of course anyone who believes that you don't have to dismiss other gods agrees with you, but if someone claims that your position is not true, then either you're right, they are, or neither of you are. If you were both correct then you would have to be agreeing on the same concept. You may believe that their god exists in some form or as part of some whole, the same afterlife, the same moral code, whatever, but as long as one attribute contradicts, you are not talking about the same entity, and cannot be both be right if one of your beliefs requires the other person to be wrong.
during this whole discussion I haven't seen anyone actually give a specific definition for whatever theist belief they had, or actually try and justify their beliefs. you may label me as narrow minded and intolerant, but I am perfectly willing to discuss the justifications for religious belief and I would never claim I know your justification to be faulty without hearing it. your repeated claim that I will be irrational based on my vocal denouncement of theist beliefs as unfounded has no backing because you haven't actually discussed it with me yet.
It is possible for me to be intolerant of a viewpoint that I believe to be faulty and that encourages faulty thinking and still be rational in a discussion of the relative merits. In any dispute over reality, one party has to be acting irrationally or there would be no disagreement, and I fully accept the possibility of me being irrational, but until we talk about there is going to be absolutely no understanding gained on either side.
-
You're making far too many blanket statements to be correct. Judaism recognizes that there are other religions out there and that just because other people are not Jewish doesn't mean they're evil or "sinners" or any stupid crap like that. Although it seems that you in your atheist religion believe that about Jews. Strange how the atheist is more dogmatic and religious about his beliefs than several of the religious people here.
-
Nit picking.
If fatcat goes into detail, he gets slammed for typing too much text, and no one will likely read it all anyway. So casting a "blanket statement" is fitting for this format, and it gets his point across just fine if the reader is willing to relax a bit and hear his message.
Josh didn't reply to the issue really in his homo related post. Additionally, many people say that homosexuality isn't a preference whatsoever but that it is determined at birth- and that cancels out a lot of what was said.
If people weren't indoctrinated to believe in this or that spirit, and if people weren't subjected to morals imposed by various religions in competition with one another for winning souls, then this whole concept would fade away. Superstition and myths would take form once again, which is a more entertaining and healthy pastime to engage in, and far less harmful.
-
If people weren't indoctrinated to believe in this or that spirit, and if people weren't subjected to morals imposed by various religions in competition with one another for winning souls, then this whole concept would fade away. Superstition and myths would take form once again, which is a more entertaining and healthy pastime to engage in, and far less harmful.
You're assumptions in this paragraph is that there is indoctrination in my beliefs and that all religions are like the monotheist ones that try and convince everyone to view things their way. Wrong. I chose to believe what I believe. Others who believe like I do don't want to "convert" anyone.
-
I getcha. My point is that if it were simply dropped, in a few generations people would get over the myths.
You choose to believe what you believe- I have no idea what that would be. But if you had no knowledge of Jehova, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, ..and so on and on and on..
Then you wouldn't be burdened or challenged on whether or not your choice of beliefs were correct. It might be as simple as looking at the world and thinking "Ah.. so this is the world I'm in. Cool."
Morality would be based on human nature, on a more personal and individual basis.
-
Additionally, many people say that homosexuality isn't a preference whatsoever but that it is determined at birth- and that cancels out a lot of what was said.
A lot of people say that about religion too.
Since when does what "many people say" mean jack shit?
-
Then you wouldn't be burdened or challenged on whether or not your choice of beliefs were correct. It might be as simple as looking at the world and thinking "Ah.. so this is the world I'm in. Cool."
Morality would be based on human nature, on a more personal and individual basis.
Again, you're assuming there is a burden or a challenge involved for me. There isn't. Also, you're assuming that if no one knew about any gods or other kinds of spirits, then because to you they don't exist we wouldn't know about them.
While in my beliefs and understanding of the universe is that there are lots of beings out there that we don't see in our normal state of mind that would eventually make themselves known to humankind anyway.
-
If people weren't indoctrinated to believe in this or that spirit, and if people weren't subjected to morals imposed by various religions in competition with one another for winning souls, then this whole concept would fade away. Superstition and myths would take form once again, which is a more entertaining and healthy pastime to engage in, and far less harmful.
You're assumptions in this paragraph is that there is indoctrination in my beliefs and that all religions are like the monotheist ones that try and convince everyone to view things their way. Wrong. I chose to believe what I believe. Others who believe like I do don't want to "convert" anyone.
I'm with you 100% on that. Where religion lies, I'm not interested in converting anyone or having anyone try to convert me.
-
Since when does what "many people say" mean jack shit?
:?
I should mention then that I am not referring to Porcupine's religious interests, or any others that do not attempt to convert members or disprove other forms of belief. But that pretty much cancels out the far majority of religious folk.
Honestly- there's no way I would attempt to catalogue every religion I could think of and explain my reasoning based toward each one! Now quit nit picking me coss you know what I mean.
JB- doesn't the jewish faith demand that non-jews convert to jew if they're going to marry someone who is already a jew? And it seems jewish people promote the homogenization of ethnicities and faiths outside juadaism, but simultaneously harp on the importance of preserving their own faith?
-
Name one benefit religion brings that cannot be achieved by secular means.
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
no. sexuality is just a preference, it supports nor supplies any ideas. Believing in a religion requires you to believe things, its not just a taste or preference. Every religion requires you to accept or deny certain factual claims about reality. beliefs =! preference. I already outlined the hazards of religion, how it has indisputably been used to destroy and restrict scientific research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference
Preferences ARE choices you make concerning ideas and beliefs. If you want to start getting into semantics, let me know so I can stop debating you, because I'm not into that shit.
You completely failed to answer what I said.
No, I didn't. Your claim is that atheists can do anything a 'believer' can do, and I'm saying this is a non-sequitor. It's like saying that football players can do the same thing soccer players can do - they're both human, and they both kick around a ball...they just have a different way of playing by the 'rules', so to speak.
My point was:
1. Religion has facilitated negative acts that would have otherwise not occurred. There's no reason to burn books/lock up people that dispute what the Koran or the Bible says if you did not believe what those books say.
You can say this about anything. Big Macs have facilitated negative acts on people that otherwise would not have occured had they not eaten the Big Mac - BUT, it brings a certain joy to people who want a Big Mac! Who are you to say that just because SOME individual, SOMEWHERE, under the guise of 'religion' (the biggest blanket term I've ever heard - and quite collectivist of you to keep spouting it like it concerns every person on the planet who doesn't believe in just materialism), that burned some books somewhere, makes the rest of religious folk bad? It's nonsense, and as someone who I'd think wouldn't put everyone in some big collectivist umbrella, I'm kind of ashamed of you.
2.There is nothing positive about religion that you can't get via non religious means. Peace of mind, moral guidance, hope, every single claim I've heard for the benefits of religion can be found without having to believe in supernatural claims.
Non-sequitor, and completely meaningless statement. Anything an 'atheist' can do, a believer can do. Anything a believer can do, and atheist can do. This is a red herring argument. Believers don't believe because what they believe is beneficial, they believe because they believe it to be the truth. Also, 'positive' is entirely subjective. You might find something positive out of debating, Davi might find something positive out of prayer, and Porcupine might find something positive about wearing a Thor pendant around his neck to work in the morning.
You. Do. Not. Get. To. Tell. Anyone. What. They. Do. Is. Not. Positive. As. Long. As. They. Are. Not. Hurting. Others.
3. From points 1 + 2, at best religion is no more positive than non-religion, at worst it is harmful. Even if you don't accept religious belief has EVER led to bad choices (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html), then at best it is still only as good as non religion, which makes it a useless set of beliefs. Not that beliefs need to have a use, I'm just making the point.
Oh, I certainly think 'religious' people have done some bad. You are not talking to a religious person, here, fatcat. I don't condone any of the murders, rapes, mind control, or puritanism and atrocities brought about by certain religious people. However, unlike you, I'm willing to look at individual actions and beliefs instead of the collective.
Again, you pull out the red herring. What may be good for you, may not be good for me. Preference, my friend. :)
And nothing is useless if someone believes it can work.
If you want to believe in some improvable deity, then go ahead, I never made the claim that you shouldn't be allowed to believe in whatever you want, this was not my point.
I never said you did. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Since most religions deal with inherently intangible and ineffectual subjects (souls, gods, heavens and hells that can't be reached in the 'living' universe, anything that can't actually be measured), it seems pretty futile to me to spend any amount of time considering something that cannot be proved, and has no actual effect on your life that can't be achieved via non religion.
And that works for you, and I'm glad. Except - don't say that spirituality has no effect on my life that can't be achieved via non-religion - because it does, and it's such a personal matter that you would know absolutely NOTHING about it. So don't tell me what does or does not have an effect on my being.
The very fact that to accept one religion you have to dismiss dozens of others which have exactly the same amount of proof is enough to make the whole thing seem very asinine.
I think of it as choosing an operating system. You have Windows, you have Mac, and you have Linux. Which one are you going to choose? I could choose materialism, and leave it at that. I could choose Buddhism, which believes in both existence and non-existence. Or I could choose monotheism, and believe in one deity. Humans HAVE to choose an operating system (I suggest you get a hold of Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson, or look into some of his other works, and works by Timothy Leary), and whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves. As the chaos magicians say - Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted.
Now answer my original point please. One benefit that religion brings that cannot be gained by non religious means.
Already did.
-
I absolutely don't have time to read through ten pages of posts, so I apologize for almost certainly being redundant here, but what about Agnostic?
-
To believe that two religions which are contradictory cannot both be true assumes that truth is not contradictory. A person who believes truth can be contradictory doesn't have this problem. I'm not one of these people, but they do exist.
I was not indoctrinated. I went from agnosticism to polytheism to monotheism, developing my concept of God based upon direct experience, dreams, visions, meditation and a some psychedelics... I found Islam's concept of God to be identical to what I arrived at independently, and I found it's world view adequate in explaining all my first hand experience.
I have no intention of converting anyone... I can only speak and act according to my beliefs. The decision is yours.
I believe that Porcupine's gods exist, (I'm assuming you're asatru or odinist based on the Thor's hammer pendant) but I don't worship them. I don't consider them demons. Islam acknowledges these critters, and I've met enough of them to believe in them. I'm of the opinion that the Haavamal (the Word of the High One) was likely the work of a prophet. The Nordic poetic tradition makes it difficult to tell what the text originally said, but my favorite line from the viking scripture is verse 22, "An ill tempered, unhappy man; Ridicules all he hears; Makes fun of others; refusing always; To see the faults in himself." Advice I think any Atheist could benefit from.
The question about the benefit of religion is almost identical to Christopher Hitchens's classic challenge to religious audiences to tell him one good deed a believer can perform that an atheist can not. It's irrelevant. Believers are not superheros. Anything an atheist saw as a good deed or a benefit could be performed out of self interest. The only sufficient answers must be things atheists don't see as good or beneficial. The answer to Hitchens's question is prayer. An atheist is incapable of prayer. Similarly, the benefits that religion bring are spiritual, which atheists do not recognize as beneficial. By limiting your notion of good and beneficial to the material you prohibit the entire arena in which religion plays.
You cannot ascend the Sephiroth of the Kaballists by non religious means. You cannot achieve the ecstatic states of the Gnostics. You cannot attain the high Maqaam of Sufism. You cannot earn the pleasure of God by non religious means.
But you don't believe in these things... so the question is irrelevant.
Is there one benefit that atheism brings cannot be gained by religious means? Similarly irrelevant.
Truth is the criterion, not benefit. I hold beliefs that are not beneficial from a materialist paradigm... what is the material benefit in fasting? But every spiritual tradition everywhere, from Native American to Buddhist find spiritual benefit in fasting.
It's a silly question.
-
I voted for atheism, because atheism is one of my religions. Liberty as voluntary civil government is another one of my religions.(Apparently, this poll does not allowed us to vote for religions that don't concern theology.)
I use the word "religion" in its broadest definition; the one that encompasses all the other definitions as subcategories:
"something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."
Fatcat is confusing atheism with agnosticism. Having no good reason to believe in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God, although the first belief may be a step toward the second belief.
While I don't claim to be able to prove a negative (that there is no God), I am devoted to the belief that there is no God and this is why my belief must be categorized as a religious one. In other words, my agnosticism on this matter is only theoretical. It does not reflect a lack of conviction in my belief. It only means that I'm open to the possibility of changing my beliefs upon the receipt of convincing logic and/or evidence if it ever became available. My religion is an agnostic one, but it is atheism, not agnosticism. This does not mean that I'm unsure. It only means that my religion is not dogmatic.
-
Since when does what "many people say" mean jack shit?
:?
I should mention then that I am not referring to Porcupine's religious interests, or any others that do not attempt to convert members or disprove other forms of belief. But that pretty much cancels out the far majority of religious folk.
Honestly- there's no way I would attempt to catalogue every religion I could think of and explain my reasoning based toward each one! Now quit nit picking me coss you know what I mean.
JB- doesn't the jewish faith demand that non-jews convert to jew if they're going to marry someone who is already a jew? And it seems jewish people promote the homogenization of ethnicities and faiths outside juadaism, but simultaneously harp on the importance of preserving their own faith?
The orthodox folks say that on point one, but it's not considered that important (my mother never did any formal conversion and my family is accepted as Jewish at any synagogue I've ever been to, even the Chassidic one near my University that I like to go to -- they enjoy distributing free beer and wine to minors on Shabbat and really know how to party), but I disagree with the second point. I'm not sure exactly what homogenization of ethnicities and faiths mean however.
-
Name one benefit religion brings that cannot be achieved by secular means.
That's like asking to name one benefit homosexuality brings that cannot be achieved by heterosexual means.
no. sexuality is just a preference, it supports nor supplies any ideas. Believing in a religion requires you to believe things, its not just a taste or preference. Every religion requires you to accept or deny certain factual claims about reality. beliefs =! preference. I already outlined the hazards of religion, how it has indisputably been used to destroy and restrict scientific research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference
Preferences ARE choices you make concerning ideas and beliefs. If you want to start getting into semantics, let me know so I can stop debating you, because I'm not into that shit.
Okay i meant preference as in a taste. Like I like the taste of chocolate, I don't have to think of any concepts, have any belief or claim, if chocolate goes in my mouth I like the taste, much like I'm sure some people enjoy the taste of cock.
My point is its possible to be have a preference/taste for homosexuality, and not even be aware the concept exist. Religion is a set of ideas, in order for you to believe in a religion you have to be aware of the concepts otherwise you don't have them to believe in.
Fatcat is confusing atheism with agnosticism. Having no good reason to believe in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God, although the first belief may be a step toward the second belief.
No I'm not. People keep making claims about my beliefs and I keep correcting them.
I've made the point several times that Atheism does not mean believing there is no god.
Atheism means lack of theist beliefs. It does not mean disbelieving theist beliefs. There is a marked difference between not believing something is true and believing it is not true.
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) refers to forms of knowledge. If we go by the strictest sense of knowledge, I am an Agnostic Atheist. I cannot possibly claim to know for sure there are no supernatural entities as I would have to have total knowledge of everything to say for sure, but I do not believe the claims of any supernatural entities have sufficient evidence for me to believe.
Now, if we are talking in a more practical, day to day form of knowledge, then I actively believe there is no god, based on a few things. Obviously its impossible for me to have the necessary knowledge to fully support this belief, so if we cut down to the wire I will accept I do not know, but I believe no super natural beings exist, just like I believe no leprechauns exist, even though there may be one on some distant planet somewhere. I have made this distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism several times during this thread, and have made my position on what I class my beliefs several times as well. If you disagree with my definitions then fair enough, but it does not change the ones I will use.
You're making far too many blanket statements to be correct. Judaism recognizes that there are other religions out there and that just because other people are not Jewish doesn't mean they're evil or "sinners" or any stupid crap like that. Although it seems that you in your atheist religion believe that about Jews. Strange how the atheist is more dogmatic and religious about his beliefs than several of the religious people here.
See this is my main point I tried to make. I never claimed that all religions say all other religions are wrong. I am fully aware there are many sects of traditional and modern organised/non organised religions that are accepting of other beliefs.
My point is of one of objective reality, how we measure reality. If one person says there is only one god and nothing else, and you say that his god exists but others do, you are contradicting each other and cannot be both simultaneously right.
Any claims that things can be contradictory and true at the same time, then they aren't contradictory, merely conflicting. Heres the difference:
It is possible for some supernatural entity to exist in one form and several others. Now even though attributes of the form may conflict with each other, if all those entities can exist at the same time without making it impossible for others to exist, then there is no contradiction.
My hand cannot be 100 celcius and 0 celcius at the same time, from the fact that each state makes the other state impossible to exist, this is contradiction, and impossible to occur in reality except in abstract concept. This is what I mean by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non_contradiction).
If you think that there is more than one god/forms of supernatural entities, then that is your belief, but it is not possible for that belief, and the belief that there is only one god and no others to be true at the same time. You can accept that their god may be real, but if part of their religion means part of yours would not be true, then you cannot accept both religions to be true.
You're making far too many blanket statements to be correct. Judaism recognizes that there are other religions out there and that just because other people are not Jewish doesn't mean they're evil or "sinners" or any stupid crap like that.
Show me where I made this point and I will retract it. I made no claims whether religions dislike or denounce other religions, I have merely claimed that contradictory beliefs about reality cannot be simultaneously true, or they are then not contradictory, by very definition.
-
The way I see it, accepting other people's religious identities is not a problem that is even mildly tangential to polytheism. Other people have different ways and different superstitions of acknowledging God. Of course I note that many are pretty silly, but as long as they're cool or don't bother me, why should I care about their superstitions? I'm not trying to convert them and I can't see anything wrong with other people practicing different rituals or calling their god by a different name than I do. Of course I find it ridiculous that Indians would rather starve and worship cows than eat them, but I've never been hurt by them doing so.
What I see many atheists doing is proselytizing others to join their religion. And I agree with Diogynese the Cynic that pretty much anything dogmatized can be religious. For example, I've referred to Environmentalism as being a religion as well.
I think I pointed out pretty decently earlier of what I see the difference of Atheist vs. Non-theist, but I'll point out one more thing on that that follows up with another person's comments: Atheists claim dogmatically in the positive that there is no god. Non-theists don't give a damn one way or the other. That's the most simplistic way I can spell out the differences.
-
First recorded usage of Non-theism is by G. J. Holyoake in 1852,[2] who introduces it because
"Mr. [Charles] Southwell has taken an objection to the term Atheism. We are glad he has. We have disused it a long time [...]. We disuse it, because Atheist is a worn-out word. Both the ancients and the moderns have understood by it one without God, and also without morality. Thus the term connotes more than any well-informed and earnest person accepting it ever included in it; that is, the word carries with it associations of immorality, which have been repudiated by the Atheist as seriously as by the Christian. Non-theism is a term less open to the same misunderstanding, as it implies the simple non-acceptance of the Theist's explanation of the origin and government of the world."
-
The way I see it, accepting other people's religious identities is not a problem that is even mildly tangential to polytheism. Other people have different ways and different superstitions of acknowledging God. Of course I note that many are pretty silly, but as long as they're cool or don't bother me, why should I care about their superstitions? I'm not trying to convert them and I can't see anything wrong with other people practicing different rituals or calling their god by a different name than I do. Of course I find it ridiculous that Indians would rather starve and worship cows than eat them, but I've never been hurt by them doing so.
What I see many atheists doing is proselytizing others to join their religion. And I agree with Diogynese the Cynic that pretty much anything dogmatized can be religious. For example, I've referred to Environmentalism as being a religion as well.
I think I pointed out pretty decently earlier of what I see the difference of Atheist vs. Non-theist, but I'll point out one more thing on that that follows up with another person's comments: Atheists claim dogmatically in the positive that there is no god. Non-theists don't give a damn one way or the other. That's the most simplistic way I can spell out the differences.
I was not talking about being respectful, to other beliefs, I'm talking about claims of truth. I fully accept it is possible to accept someones beliefs as neutral, positive, whatever, and not agree with their claims about the nature of those beliefs, but some people here are claiming that multiple contradictory beliefs can be true at the same time, which is not possible. What I believe these people are really getting at is that its possible for these multiple supernatural entities to exist as form of some greater whole, or something else, although I am only assuming because no one has outlined the exact nature of their beliefs.
Atheists claim dogmatically in the positive that there is no god.
*sigh*
Atheism is not a religion, its a lack of belief, what you're talking about is anti-theism. A lot of Atheists make anti-theists claims, it doesn't make it an atheist attribute, just like a lot of people for drug freedom use drugs, it does not mean they are mutually inclusive.
Have a look back through this thread and see how many times I've addressed this. Atheist means lack of belief, not belief there is no god.
I don't know ANY atheist who claims to know to 100% certainty that no god exist. It would require a COMPLETE knowledge of the universe to say for sure either way. Now I know alot of Atheists who will claim in a very practical and general way that there is no god, much like I would claim there are no pixies, but any I have ever met would claim that they cannot be certain, as any reasonable person would admit it would be impossible to do so.
What I see most atheists railing against is the belief in a god when sufficient evidence has not been presented. Its much more logical to believe something doesn't exist when there is no evidence, than to believe something does when there is no evidence.
I am an anti-theist, because I see many religious people using their religion as a vehicle for the restriction of science and liberty, and also I see it leading to bad choices, like praying for your diabetic daughter instead of getting her to the fucking hospital and getting her insulin. Also, at a fundamental level, I do not believe any religion has presented enough evidence to believe in over any other religion, and I think it is a result of emotional based irrational thinking that one could accept such a claim with such insufficient evidence, although I will not assume your justifications are incorrect until I have heard them. If you do not agree with me then tell me why. You may think I'm intolerant and arrogant, I may think you irrational and misguided, but lets move on from that point and actually get the exchange of ideas going on.
Now it is still incorrect to claim absolute certainty there are no gods. I don't, absolute certainty is impossible for a human, but there is a lot of evidence to say that put a group of humans in an area, and after a long enough time they will start inventing gods/other supernatural claims. This isn't enough to claim every single religious claim is just made up, but its a strong indicator, and until I see any evidence for a god that isn't a really old book, my default position is non belief, and depending on the day I may claim to believe that there are no gods, although as I have repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread there is no way for me to be sure, so really I just don't believe theist claims, I don't actively believe them to be untrue.
The, "I don't have to justify my beliefs to you" stance seems really bizarre to me. I'm fully aware you don't have to, its not some intellectual uppercut to remind me of the fact, but we're on a discussion forum, people who claim I am too intolerant/irrational to debate with are still responding to my posts, if your beliefs have merit you should care about justifying them, although thats just my personal opinion. I appear ignorant for assuming what other peoples beliefs are, but what other choice do I have if people are responding to me but refusing to say what they actually believe.
If you would like to outline what you specific beliefs are, and what justification you have for those beliefs, I would like to hear it, and maybe we could talk about what we each would consider sufficient evidence/justification to form such a belief, although I am not hopeful as I am far to much of an arrogant, intolerant atheist to ever have a rational conversation.
-
I don't know ANY atheist who claims to know to 100% certainty that no god exist. It would require a COMPLETE knowledge of the universe to say for sure either way. Now I know alot of Atheists who will claim in a very practical and general way that there is no god, but any I have ever met would claim that they cannot be certain, as any reasonable person would admit it would be impossible to do so.
I guess you've never taken a spin over to the Skepticality or Skeptic's Guide threads. Self styled atheists there purport to know with certainty that there is no god, and furthermore make up funny new classifications like 'functional atheist' to try and convince you that you do too. It was this experience coupled with an inability to provide substantive responses to the fallacies in the IPCC report that left me disenchanted with the whole skeptical movement. On the plus side, more time for me to spend working toward liberty in my lifetime.
-
I guess you've never taken a spin over to the Skepticality or Skeptic's Guide threads. Self styled atheists there purport to know with certainty that there is no god, and furthermore make up funny new classifications like 'functional atheist' to try and convince you that you do too. It was this experience coupled with an inability to provide substantive responses to the fallacies in the IPCC report that left me disenchanted with the whole skeptical movement. On the plus side, more time for me to spend working toward liberty in my lifetime.
Well I've never encountered an atheist who claimed to know for a certainty, except maybe for instances where a supernatural belief would dispute facts in reality, such as a god who made a universe that was only 6,000 years old. This is provably incorrect. If you think the universe could be less than billions of years old then you don't understand how science works and you need to go look at the evidence. If you throw in a few caveats about, assuming god didn't make the universe 6,000 years ago and made it look like it was billions of years old, then I'm comfortable getting close to absolute certainty about logically impossible things.
Though in an abstract sense, anyone claiming absolute certainty is a retard.
-
Well I've never encountered an atheist who claimed to know for a certainty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
-
Well I've never encountered an atheist who claimed to know for a certainty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
I'm not a complete simpleton. I know they exist, I'm just saying I've never met one. Also I make the distinction between absolute certainty. Under some criteria I believe there are no supernatural entities, but under an absolute one, I accept my knowledge and senses are too limited to make any absolute claim.
-
It doesn't really matter how convinced you may be personally. The fact is that the existence of god, gods, etc. is an untestable premise. As such it does not fall under the preview of science. No series of logical arguments could convincingly affirm or deny the premise. Therefore the existence of god is not a rational question. It seems to me most efficacious to investigate why people choose to irrationally believe, or irrationally disbelieve.
In my experience, most disbelievers think themselves better, more rational, sometimes even more 'evolved' thinkers who have no need for the fairy-tales of the mindless masses. Myself believing that all men are more or less equal, I see no reason to look down my nose at those who have had experiences they interpret as divine. I have no reason to call them liars, and I know for a fact they aren't all stupid. As I can neither prove nor disprove their claims, and have no inherent reason to doubt them, I feel the only intellectually honest course is to leave open the possibility in my mind. To admit that I have no idea.
-
Hey fatcat- what's good about this thread is that at least we aren't stuck discussing this stuff with christians only. Instead, it seems we have some of the more liberal representatives from various faiths..
If you divide them all up into teams, it seems no one is competing against each other really, it's just that all of them are focusing on the new guy on the field - us. We're at a disadvantage because we really don't understand the rules of their sport. It's curious to me that they aren't going after one another on topics of their faith, and that somehow they all think they each are believing in the "correct" god, but it's dandy if others believe in different gods.. just so long as a person believes in "some" god - it's a-okay! Just don't get caught believing in "no god" cause then you'd be some intolerant freak.
I'd like the various liberal representatives to answer a question-
Did Adam & Eve, or whoever the various first humans were in your storybook, have belly buttons? Yeah, it's a serious question.
-
:roll:
-
:roll:
Blackie's in depth reply suggests no belly button.
-
:roll:
-
Hey fatcat- what's good about this thread is that at least we aren't stuck discussing this stuff with christians only. Instead, it seems we have some of the more liberal representatives from various faiths..
...
just so long as a person believes in "some" god - it's a-okay! Just don't get caught believing in "no god" cause then you'd be some intolerant freak.
I don't care if you don't believe in God, just so long as you don't proselytize me about it. Or repeatedly try to convert me to atheism as fatcat has been doing.
I'd like the various liberal representatives to answer a question-
Did Adam & Eve, or whoever the various first humans were in your storybook, have belly buttons? Yeah, it's a serious question.
Evolution dude.
-
I'm not liberal, I'm a fundamentalist, as in I adhere to the fundamentals. And that's a silly question. I have no opinion about it.
Christians and Jews and Muslims worship the same God... I've only heard Evangelicals dispute this. We disagree about points of law, points of theology and points of history.
Believing that the pagan gods exist doesn't make worshiping them "dandy." Believing the God of the Bible and Allah are the same Being does not make worshiping Jesus "dandy." Worshiping other than the Creator is the only sin more egregious than disbelief. But these are finer points of Islamic theology, and I don't expect them to believe the same as me. We can disagree, and I can think they are astray, and they can think I'm astray without resorting to insult and disrespect.
-
Evolution dude.
Judaism- Denial of evolution is a defining characteristic of education in Orthodox Judaism. But what does the most modern segment of Orthodox Judaism the small number of students permitted to go to a public university and be exposed to non-censored scientific knowledge believe about evolution and other scientific issues? The sample of 176 Orthodox Jewish students surveyed showed almost complete denial of evolution and other central tenets of modern science (such as the age of the universe); the survey also revealed that these students received their scientific beliefs not from their college science courses, but from rabbinical authorities, or from Orthodox Jewish scientists, who in turn propagate the anti-science views of rabbinical authorities. Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey was that the Orthodox Jewish students who were science majors were even less accepting of mainstream science than those who were not science majors.
Pantheism- The most important modern version of pantheism is that of Baruch Spinoza. For him nature is infinite, but because the only being capable of genuine infinity is God, God must be identical, in essence, with nature. In the 18th and 19th centuries the various forms of Idealism sometimes tended toward pantheism, often in the form of a theory of cosmic evolution.
Christianity- People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process
.
David Oldroyd,
Islam- I won't comment much on Darwin's theories, because I don't know enough about it. But it is quite clear that the theory of Evolution has no support in Islam. Let us look at the proof:
Allah Almighty created the first man of Mankind on Earth from scratch. He didn't evolve him from any other GOD's creation: "Behold, thy Lord said to the Angels: 'I will create a vicegerent on earth.'...(The Noble Quran, 2:34)"
:)
In fairness, in my quick google search for these quotes (which lasted 6 days or 6 eons, depending on your preferred translation of your preferred religious text)- it's shocking, but I did also find quotes that say evolution is compatible with each of those four religions! Which just goes to show what a mucked up jumble this folly is comprised of. Even the fucking scholars can't decide what the fuck is true, so it's no wonder the masses of believers are melding together to form one big mush of everything-goes.
Pantheism was the only "religion" that didn't reject evolution. But it's so friendly it doesn't reject anything.
-
I'm not liberal, I'm a fundamentalist, as in I adhere to the fundamentals. And that's a silly question. I have no opinion about it.
Christians and Jews and Muslims worship the same God... I've only heard Evangelicals dispute this. We disagree about points of law, points of theology and points of history.
Believing that the pagan gods exist doesn't make worshiping them "dandy." Believing the God of the Bible and Allah are the same Being does not make worshiping Jesus "dandy." Worshiping other than the Creator is the only sin more egregious than disbelief. But these are finer points of Islamic theology, and I don't expect them to believe the same as me. We can disagree, and I can think they are astray, and they can think I'm astray without resorting to insult and disrespect.
It isn't a silly question. If the first couple had belly buttons - why? If they did not have belly buttons.. then why do I (and I presume you do as well).
What is the proper name of the "Creator" that you refer to?
-
Islam- I won't comment much on Darwin's theories, because I don't know enough about it. But it is quite clear that the theory of Evolution has no support in Islam. Let us look at the proof:
Allah Almighty created the first man of Mankind on Earth from scratch. He didn't evolve him from any other GOD's creation: "Behold, thy Lord said to the Angels: 'I will create a vicegerent on earth.'...(The Noble Quran, 2:34)"
From what I've seen micro evolution is widely accepted, and macro evolution is split. It doesn't surprise me that scholars haven't come to an agreement about it because it's not explicit in the text, religious scholars don't tend to be scientists, and It's just not theologically relevant. Evolution neither coincides nor contradicts the Quran. I don't know what Quran you're reading, but my chapter 2:34 is different.
I'm looking at three translations and non of them contain the word "scratch" anywhere. The Quran says that all life was created from earth, water, and mud in different verses... as far as I can tell this is consistent with evolution, which agrees that life began from some kind of primordial soup. But evolution doesn't describe biogenesis. The origin of life is still unknown. Micro evolution describes mutations within the genome of a single species. Muslims accept this. Macro Evolution describes speciation from simple forms to complex forms. Some Muslims deny this entirely, others accept it with conditions of divine orchestration. I suspend judgment. I've taken classes on evolution, both in highschool and college, and I see it as a salient theory, but I have questions about it that anthropologists haven't answered. For example, if a species is defined as animals which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, than for evolution to produce another species at some point some animal must have produces young which could not interbreed with it's parent species... if so, who did they breed with? How does a mother and father with 13 chromosomes produce young only 12 who are fertile when all such genetic mutations are not viable? I'm an evolution agnostic, not an evolution denier Even the fucking scholars scientists can't decide what the fuck is true
-
It isn't my quran.
The quotes came after the word "scratch".
Thanks for the broad explanation that basically says that the various sect scholars have yet to form a decision.
Even the fucking scholars scientists can't decide what the fuck is true
Your "fix" contradicts your long explanation that says the various sect scholars have yet to form a decision.
Two things are always certain though-
One- someone is not going to make it to heaven because they didn't do something right according to some religious law.
Two- only chosen parts of what I type are ever addressed.
-
Evolution dude.
Judaism- Denial of evolution is a defining characteristic of education in Orthodox Judaism. But what does the most modern segment of Orthodox Judaism the small number of students permitted to go to a public university and be exposed to non-censored scientific knowledge believe about evolution and other scientific issues? The sample of 176 Orthodox Jewish students surveyed showed almost complete denial of evolution and other central tenets of modern science (such as the age of the universe); the survey also revealed that these students received their scientific beliefs not from their college science courses, but from rabbinical authorities, or from Orthodox Jewish scientists, who in turn propagate the anti-science views of rabbinical authorities. Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey was that the Orthodox Jewish students who were science majors were even less accepting of mainstream science than those who were not science majors.
I dunno about that, the rabbi at the Chassidic synagogue I enjoy that's just down the street from me doesn't dispute evolution. I've had some good talks with him and taken some classes that he taught, specifically Sinai Scholars, and even though he knows I'm Reform and not Chassidic (probably the most orthodox Jew you can get), he agreed with me on evolution and said that in his opinion there's nowhere in the Torah that would dispute it. Of course Judaism is decentralized, there's no pope figure who hands down decrees and all Jews are considered theologically equal and encouraged to study Torah individually, but he agreed with me and he was in San Diego Magazine's top 10 most influential people in San Diego. I'm skeptical about statistics like that as I've never met a fellow Jew who disagrees with any mainstream scientific belief, and you know the stereotype I'm sure--Jews network with each other. I know a veritable shitload of Jews.
-
I hear ya..
I've got to put these topics aside soon.. spending way too much time on this stuff. Plus all the conversations are degrading into Assholism - the one true human faith!
Not saying yer an asshole BTW..
-
I hear ya..
I've got to put these topics aside soon.. spending way too much time on this stuff. Plus all the conversations are degrading into Assholism - the one true human faith!
Not saying yer an asshole BTW..
Huh? I haven't seen anyone being an asshole in this thread.
-
Nah- I was thinking of the one with me and Nonarchist. It's not really about learning anything as much as it is proving something now- both of us.
-
Nah- I was thinking of the one with me and Nonarchist. It's not really about learning anything as much as it is proving something now- both of us.
If that's what you think, then you're the one making it that way.
I suggest you change that.
-
Bullshit.
-
Bullshit.
Suit yourself.
-
Nah- I was thinking of the one with me and Nonarchist. It's not really about learning anything as much as it is proving something now- both of us.
Well you're certainly not trying to learn... so what are you trying to prove?
-
That he
is has a big dick.
-
Adam and Chava (or as ya'll know her, Eve) had bellybuttons.
-
Adam and Chava (or as ya'll know her, Eve) had bellybuttons.
That, or they didn't actually exist, which is more likely considering they're both representations of Chokmah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokhmah_%28Kabbalah%29) and Binah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binah_%28Kabbalah%29), two opposite Sephira on the Tree of Life. From the Wisdom of Chokmah, came the 'rib', which was used to create the Understanding of Binah.
You people who take the Bible literally should really study up on your Kabbalah.
-
Dude, nice. Seriously nice. But since you obviously read up on your Torah, you're familiar with Rambams "Morei Nevuchim" (the guide for the perplexed) which states that they really were real.
Look up mitochondrial Eve on wikipedia.
-
Dude, nice. Seriously nice. But since you obviously read up on your Torah, you're familiar with Rambams "Morei Nevuchim" (the guide for the perplexed) which states that they really were real.
Look up mitochondrial Eve on wikipedia.
I'm not Jewish. I don't hold any faith in the Torah.
Give me a link to the mitochondrial Eve thing though...but if it's the same bullshit the Mormons have been pulling with their Lamanite DNA, I'm gonna be pissed.
-
I really like the mitochondrial Eve idea. That Eve would have a belly button. I still suspend judgment, but it's a reality tunnel I'm fond of. In the Islamic paradigm that makes Adam's role as first prophet the distinguishing line between animal man and rational man.
-
Alright, I just read up on it. Very interesting. I'm not quite sure this is the same woman that the Bible references though. There's absolutely no way of telling or knowing.
Also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon
-
Mitochondrial Eve was a pretty interesting read, I'll admit that. But the article I read didn't mention who, if anything, created her.
Why would CreatorX have created a man and a woman, complete with belly buttons and nipples?
Nonarchist- I'm attempting to prove that most ignorant terrorists in todays world are muslim. Sadly, it's easy for anyone to do so.
And I'll remind you of yet another question you haven't answered.. what is the proper name of the "Creator" ?
-
You people who take the Bible literally should really study up on your Kabbalah.
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental; they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Sufi's love this verse, because they seek this complete understanding of both the literal and the allegorical. The Radicals hate this because they deny the possibility of allegorical passages. And this is why I suspend judgment. I believe in the Book, and the whole of it is from my Lord. The specifics of belly buttons is inconsequential. Whether it's literal, or allegorical the story is fertile for those who reflect. Whether Adam was created from scratch, or an evolutionary process, the fruits of that reflection are the same.
-
Nonarchist- I'm attempting to prove that most ignorant terrorists in todays world are muslim. Sadly, it's easy for anyone to do so.
Wow really? That's a tangent... because I think that's the first you've made that claim, and I haven't seen you present any evidence. You really need to work on your communication skills. I'm not even sure I'd dispute it. I've never seen the numbers. I'd like to see the per capta terrorist rate of Muslims compared to environmentalists. If I took a wild guess I'd think that most ignorant terrorists in todays world were government bureaucrats.
I'm attempting to prove that Traditional Mainstream Islam is not the cause of terrorism, but that it is the result of other outside factors such as foreign imperialism, and outside ideologies introduced into the Muslim world. I think I've shown this so thoroughly I've repeated myself like 10 times... and I'm yet to see a descent counter argument.
And I'll remind you of yet another question you haven't answered.. what is the proper name of the "Creator" ?
All right I'll tell you what... one for one... cause there's plenty of stuff you haven't answered me.
Here's my question:
What parts of culture would you like to mandate?
Here's my answer:
The 99 names of Allah
Ar-Rahman (The All-Compassionate)
Ar-Rahim (The All-Merciful)
Al-Malik (The Absolute Ruler)
Al-Quddus (The Pure One)
As-Salam (The Source of Peace)
Al-Mu'min (The Inspirer of Faith)
Al-Muhaymin (The Guardian)
Al-'Aziz (The Victorious)
Al-Jabbar (The Compeller)
Al-Mutakabbir (The Greatest)
Al-Khaliq (The Creator)
Al-Bari' (The Maker of Order)
Al-Musawwir (The Shaper of Beauty)
Al-Ghaffar (The Forgiving)
Al-Qahhar (The Subduer)
Al-Wahhab (The Giver of All)
Ar-Razzaq (The Sustainer)
Al-Fattah (The Opener)
Al-'Alim (The Knower of All)
Al-Qabid (The Constrictor)
Al-Basit (The Reliever)
Al-Khafid (The Abaser)
Ar-Rafi' (The Exalter)
Al-Mu'izz (The Bestower of Honors)
Al-Mudhill (The Humiliator)
As-Sami (The Hearer of All)
Al-Basir (The Seer of All)
Al-Hakam (The Judge)
Al-'Adl (The Just)
Al-Latif (The Subtle One)
Al-Khabir (The All-Aware)
Al-Halim (The Forebearing)
Al-'Azim (The Magnificent)
Al-Ghafur (The Forgiver and Hider of Faults)
Ash-Shakur (The Rewarder of Thankfulness)
Al-'Ali (The Highest)
Al-Kabir (The Greatest)
Al-Hafiz (The Preserver)
Al-Muqit (The Nourisher)
Al-Hasib (The Accounter)
Al-Jalil (The Mighty)
Al-Karim (The Generous)
Ar-Raqib (The Watchful One)
Al-Mujib (The Responder to Prayer)
Al-Wasi' (The All-Comprehending)
Al-Hakim (The Perfectly Wise)
Al-Wadud (The Loving One)
Al-Majíd (The Majestic One)
Al-Ba'ith (The Resurrector)
Ash-Shahid (The Witness)
Al-h Haqq (The Truth)
Al-Wakil (The Trustee)
Al-Qawi (The Possessor of All Strength)
Al-Matin (The Forceful One)
Al-Wáli (The Governor)
Al-Hamid (The Praised One)
Al-Muhsi (The Appraiser)
Al-Mubdi (The Originator)
Al-Mu'id (The Restorer)
Al-Muhyi (The Giver of Life)
Al-Mumit (The Taker of Life)
Al-Hayy (The Ever Living One)
Al-Qayyum (The Self-Existing One)
Al-Wajid (The Finder)
Al-Májid (The Glorious)
Al-Wahid (The Only One)
Al-Ahad (The One)
As-Samad (The Satisfier of All Needs)
Al-Qadir (The All Powerful)
Al-Muqtadir (The Creator of All Power)
Al-Muqaddim (The Expediter)
Al-Mu'akhkhir (The Delayer)
Al-Awwal (The First)
Al-Akhir (The Last)
Az-Zahir (The Manifest One)
Al-Batin (The Hidden One)
Al-Walí (The Protecting Friend)
Al-Muta'ali (The Supreme One)
Al-Barr (The Doer of Good)
At-Tawwib (The Guide to Repentance)
Al-Muntaqim (The Avenger)
Al-Afu (The Forgiver)
Ar-Ra'uf (The Clement)
Malik al-Mulk (The Owner of All)
Dhul-Jalali Wal-Ikram (The Lord of Majesty and Bounty)
Al-Muqsit (The Equitable One)
Al-Jami (The Gatherer)
Al-Ghani (The Rich One)
Al-Mughni (The Enricher)
Al-Mani' (The Preventer of Harm)
Ad-Darr (The Creator of The Harmful)
An-Nafi (The Creator of Good)
An-Nur (The Light)
Al-Hadi (The Guide)
Al-Badi (The Originator)
Al-Baqi (The Everlasting One)
Al-Warith (The Inheritor of All)
Ar-Rashid (The Righteous Teacher)
As-Sabur (The Patient One)
-
That's a good question. Sorry if I'd missed it in any of your earlier posts.
I'd mandate that common sense, logic, reason and all things akin to critical thinking be of utmost importance.
You've named whom you believe to be Creator. Is it not true that in islam, there can be but one god?
-
I'd mandate that common sense, logic, reason and all things akin to critical thinking be of utmost importance.
LMAO ::knee slapping:: Oh man... I'm sorry ::wiping tears from eyes:: ok...
how?
You've named whom you believe to be Creator. Is it not true that in islam, there can be but one god?
Al-Khaliq (The Creator). Yes. However... your question requires some definitions. This is your classic big g little G split. In Arabic the words are illah and Allah. An illah is anything which a person worships. "Allah" is the proper name form of that noun. So, Allah, by any name in any language, is the one and only Creator, and he is the only one worthy of worship, but anything which a person worships other than Allah, such as Jesus, or the pagan gods, or their own desires, is an illah. They exist in the world. But a person who worships them is astray.
-
how?
Well, seeing that we must be speaking in theory, I would use my Brain-Unwasher2008 to remove all stupidity, obsession, mania and mass delusion from those afflicted with said conditions.
What shall become of me and others who are "astray"? Those of us who do not share your belief that al khaliq, with the big A, is "the" god.
-
I would use my Brain-Unwasher2008 to remove all stupidity.
Cop out... no fair. You said one of your main beefs with Muslims was that they don't assimilate into our culture. I asked you what aspect of culture you'd like to mandate. You said logic and critical thinking. These are real world hypotheticals. I want a real world answer. What parts of cultural assimilation would you enforce and how would you do it?
What shall become of me and others who are "astray"? Those of us who do not share your belief that al khaliq, with the big A, is "the" god.
Ask as a Salafi... you burn hell for all eternity. Ask traditional scholars and they will say Allahualim, "God is the Knower." In traditional schools of thought Muslims believe in Hell, but there are an incalculable number of mitigating circumstances in each soul such that one can not possibly know. For example in traditional schools a soul is only responsible for the knowledge he possesses. If he lives righteously, but never finds faith, he may be judged on his deeds. Also, a soul is only tested according to his capacity. One who strives and fails is superior to one who succeeds without effort. Also heaven and hell are not black and white. There are degrees within each. The saintly righteous receive a higher reward than the simple worshiper. And the genocidal tyrants receive a greater punishment than the common thief. Also hell is not eternal in all cases, but can be a place of atonement.
Salafis don't like these ideas. For them you're either a Salafi or your burning in hell forever. This is a new idea.
-
Nonarchist- I'm attempting to prove that most ignorant terrorists in todays world are muslim. Sadly, it's easy for anyone to do so.
Let's crunch some numbers shall we... let's use a liberal estimate and assume that all 1,000,000 names on the Terrorist Watch List (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html) are all Islamic Terrorists... even Senator Edward Kennedy, author James Moore, and Bolivian president Evo Morales. In 2000 there were an estimated 2,000,000,000 Muslims in the world (http://islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm). Fastest growing, second largest religion in the world. I'll do the math... that's a per capita terrorist rate of .05% or 1 in every 2000 Muslims.
Do you really think it's fair to generalize about a group of 2000 people because of the actions of 1?
-
Your math project was fun... but out of all the terroristic violence occurring since 2000 - how much of that could be attributed to non muslim people? I don't respect violent people.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/ - it's an excellent site. Contains a running list of violent attacks. Also speaks of dhimmitude.
Anything I say to you would likely be said there. Anything you say to me I can likely read in liberal MSM.
Your level of mania is apparent. I shall offer no further challenge to you.
-
Nonarchist- I'm attempting to prove that most ignorant terrorists in todays world are muslim. Sadly, it's easy for anyone to do so.
Do you really think it's fair to generalize about a group of 2000 people because of the actions of 1?
Answer the question, Hellbilly.
-
Your math project was fun...
Ok... new math.
The U.N. defined terrorism as "violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives." 100,000 Iraqi civilians died in the first year of the US Occupation. Not militants, not radicals... innocent men women and children. I'd call that terrorism. Estimates in 2007 said that the US had a military of 1,449,428 Total Active Duty Personnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) and a population of 301,139,947 citizens (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html). Crunch the numbers... that's a per capita terrorist rate of 4.8% or 1 in 207 Americans.
And yet I don't make that generalization about Americans... or even soldiers. My good friend Khaled served two terms in Iraq.
but out of all the terroristic violence occurring since 2000 - how much of that could be attributed to non muslim people?
Did you look into those logical fallacies? Unrepresentative sample, Correlation not Causation, and Single Cause.
I don't respect violent people.
No one is asking you to respect violent people. I'm asking you to respect the other 99.95% of Muslims.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/ - it's an excellent site.
That's a matter of opinion
Contains a running list of violent attacks. Also speaks of dhimmitude.
What this? (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg) You ever think of using a terrorism watch site that lists all attacks instead of just attacks committed by Muslims? I recommend http://www.satp.org/. Best of all they actually tell you what organization perpetrated the attack, and what their goals and objectives are. Instead of just a number the word "Islam."
Today they list 7 attacks.
Three attacks are from Taliban in Pakistan, the first targeted police officers, the second military and the third was a threat against parliamentarians who supported President Musharaf. Not civilian targets, and all aimed at the political objective of removing Musharaf, a US puppet dictator.
One attack was from the Tamil Tigers in Srilanka who we discussed. The site calls them "arguably the most lethal and well organised terrorist group in the world." BTW they are Hindu... not Muslim.
Another Attack was from the United Liberation Front of Asom who are Socialists
Another from the Communist Party of India-Maoist who are Communists
And the last is from Al Badr... I'm assuming they are Muslim because the name is Arabic. The sites says, "The Al Badr was formed with the professed goal of strengthening the ‘Kashmiri freedom struggle.’ The outfit advocates that Kashmiris should be given the right of self-determination in accordance with the United Nations resolutions.
Freedom fighters, fighting in accordance with UN resolutions... and there's that word "self-determination" again.
Is it clear yet? The common trait amongst terrorists is not Islam, it is the struggle for self determination. All these attacks support my thesis not yours.
Anything I say to you would likely be said there.
I think that's probably because that's the only site you read. Isn't it interesting that I'm able to support my thesis from a multitude of non Muslim sources and you continually resort to the same web site.
Anything you say to me I can likely read in liberal MSM.
Yeah... show me. Because I don't read it.
Your level of mania is apparent. I shall offer no further challenge to you.
Than you either admit defeat, or accept the terms of my truce.
When it's Taliban, say 'Taliban". When it's Al-Qaeda say "Al-Qaeda". When it's Salafis say "Salafis". When it's Wahabis, say "Wahabis". So long as your making broad generalizations that categorize me and those I love with lunatics who throw acid on people I won't sit silently. Would you?
-
When it's Taliban, say 'Taliban". When it's Al-Qaeda say "Al-Qaeda". When it's Salafis say "Salafis". When it's Wahabis, say "Wahabis". So long as your making broad generalizations that categorize me and those I love with lunatics who throw acid on people I won't sit silently. Would you?
He can't do it. Just stop trying. Collectivism has rotted his brain to the core.
-
I found out about this in an anthropology class back in college. It turns out all the emperical data shows all people descend from one woman and one man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
-
I found out about this in an anthropology class back in college. It turns out all the emperical data shows all people descend from one woman and one man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
It's not exactly one woman, rather it's a cluster of closely related women. The same for the Y Adam.
-
I found out about this in an anthropology class back in college. It turns out all the emperical data shows all people descend from one woman and one man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
It's not exactly one woman, rather it's a cluster of closely related women. The same for the Y Adam.
It was my understanding that at one point there may have been as little as 30 breeding females.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
Human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 years ago.[2]
However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited from either father or mother, thus can be traced back in time via either matrilinear or patrilinear ancestry.[3] Research on many (but not necessarily most) genes find different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 0 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e. a single breeding pair).[4][5]
This is consistent with the Toba catastrophe theory which suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred ca. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to a c.15,000 individuals[5] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change, and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[6] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[5]
On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age[8]
-
And they all looked like Paula...
-
And they all looked like Paula...
Actually, they all probably looked like smelly negroids.
-
Fatcat is confusing atheism with agnosticism. Having no good reason to believe in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God, although the first belief may be a step toward the second belief.
No I'm not. People keep making claims about my beliefs and I keep correcting them.
I've made the point several times that Atheism does not mean believing there is no god.
Atheism means lack of theist beliefs. It does not mean disbelieving theist beliefs. There is a marked difference between not believing something is true and believing it is not true.
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) refers to forms of knowledge. If we go by the strictest sense of knowledge, I am an Agnostic Atheist. I cannot possibly claim to know for sure there are no supernatural entities as I would have to have total knowledge of everything to say for sure, but I do not believe the claims of any supernatural entities have sufficient evidence for me to believe.
Now, if we are talking in a more practical, day to day form of knowledge, then I actively believe there is no god, based on a few things. Obviously its impossible for me to have the necessary knowledge to fully support this belief, so if we cut down to the wire I will accept I do not know, but I believe no super natural beings exist, just like I believe no leprechauns exist, even though there may be one on some distant planet somewhere. I have made this distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism several times during this thread, and have made my position on what I class my beliefs several times as well. If you disagree with my definitions then fair enough, but it does not change the ones I will use.
I sympathize with much of what you mean to say, but you should consider that if you are just making up definitions to justify your statements, then you are not really communicating effectively.
A non-believer in God may be an agnostic or simply unfamiliar with the concept of God, but to be an atheist, you must be familiar with the concept and deny its validity.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
a·the·ism
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
-
Fatcat is confusing atheism with agnosticism. Having no good reason to believe in God is not the same thing as believing that there is no God, although the first belief may be a step toward the second belief.
No I'm not. People keep making claims about my beliefs and I keep correcting them.
I've made the point several times that Atheism does not mean believing there is no god.
Atheism means lack of theist beliefs. It does not mean disbelieving theist beliefs. There is a marked difference between not believing something is true and believing it is not true.
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) refers to forms of knowledge. If we go by the strictest sense of knowledge, I am an Agnostic Atheist. I cannot possibly claim to know for sure there are no supernatural entities as I would have to have total knowledge of everything to say for sure, but I do not believe the claims of any supernatural entities have sufficient evidence for me to believe.
Now, if we are talking in a more practical, day to day form of knowledge, then I actively believe there is no god, based on a few things. Obviously its impossible for me to have the necessary knowledge to fully support this belief, so if we cut down to the wire I will accept I do not know, but I believe no super natural beings exist, just like I believe no leprechauns exist, even though there may be one on some distant planet somewhere. I have made this distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism several times during this thread, and have made my position on what I class my beliefs several times as well. If you disagree with my definitions then fair enough, but it does not change the ones I will use.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
a·the·ism
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
OH GAWD
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
-
http://scribble.com/dghq/soap.html
For those of you who ever noticed and puzzled over the little "Dilute! Dilute! OK!" blurb on the back of Big Black's "Heartbeat" 7"...the mystery is now solved and, man, it's even better than you imagined. The following are selected direct quotes from the label on
Dr. Bronner's PEPPERMINT 18-in-1
PURE-CASTILE SOAP
Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Teach the Moral ABC that unites all mankind free, instantly 6 billion strong & we're All-One. "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternal One!"
1st: If I'm not for me, who am I? Nobody! 2nd: yet, if I'm only for me, what am I? Nothing! 3rd: If not now, when? Once more: Unless connstructive-selfish I work hard, like Mark Spitz, perfecting first me, absolute nothing can help perfect me!! 4th: Only hard work can save us, but if we teach only our clan? We're all hated then! So we must teach friend and enemy, the whole Human race, the full-truth, hard-work, free speech, press-and-profitsharing Moral ABC's All-One-God-Faith, lightning-like, 6 billion strong, for we're All-One or none! All-One-God-Faith, as teach the African shepard-astronomers Abraham and Israel, for 6000-years, since the year 1: "LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNAL ONE!!" - WE'RE ONE! ALL-ONE! EXCEPTIONS ETERNALLY? NONE!! ABSOLUTE NONE!!
11th: Essene and Chinese birth controls must reduce birth or Easter Isle type overpopulation destroys God's Spaceship Earth! God's law prevents all conception below pH3. Therefore, Essene contracepted for 400 yrs. with rosehips, pH2! So, absolute clean, apply vaseline, oil, butter or cream, insert one teaspoonful juicy lemon pulp, pH2. OK! Next day, douche with quart soapy water, pH8, restoring pH5 balance God made! Eggwhite is pH9, Dr.Bronner's Soap, pH8, guarnteed the mildest made; below pH8 soaps biodegrade, synthetic-sulfides cannot. At contraception, 10 grams contain 100 million humans! or...10 humans in 1 invisible microgram - smaller than dust!
13th:"Knowing the full truth that unites the human race & not teaching all is deathly guilt!", learned carpenter Jesus from Mason Rabbi Hillel! But Marx, innocent grandson of 2 Rabbis, learned only half-truth! Ashamed, Marx wrote 1844:"One World Without Jews", to kill all Jews, 1848:"The Communist Manifesto", to kill the rich, causing Nazi-Psycho-Communism, 66 million murders! As Mao wrote in Radbook '51:"Marxist-Communism, once in power, is utterly unworkable, has less value than cowdung. Its power is the gun!" What apology we Rabbis owe Israel, Marx, Mao, all mankind, for not teaching Astronomy's great All-One-God-Faith, that with just 6 words eternally unites the human race! As teaches African-shepherd Astronomer Israel for 6000 years, "LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNAL ONE!" For one God's Spaceship Earth, with Bomb and Gun, we're All-One or none! All-One! All-One! Exceptions eternally? Absolute none!
Athlete's Foot: Soap, Dry, Apply Dry. OK!
From '29 to '44, soapmaker-master-chemist Bronner built 3 American soap plants, trained 9 chemists, licensed 6 of 53 patents for $60,000! But after '44, after losing father-mother-wife, almost his own life, tortured-blinded, he deeded to African astronomer Israel's 6000 year great All-One-God-Faith all of his patents, plants, products, profits, 4 new industries: 13 Essene Birth Control patents, Planetemples & Town Without Toothache' potassium-soda industry giving mankind a new 100% tooth-decay preventing Mineral-salt, Calcium-malt, Corn-sesame-bread, Mineral boullion, Lecithin cereal, Calcium-lemonette Health-meal-tape, Speed-rule, ACC-control, catspaw sandals, Stainless-safety-mills, soap-towels & 'Dr.Bronner's Magic Soaps,'All-One! In '47, after father-mother-wife murdered, ourself tortured-blinded, we wrote this poem: To keep my health! To do my work! To love, to live! To see it I gain & grow & give & give! Never to look behind me for an hour! Never to wait in weakness nor to brag in power! Always working, searching for more truth, more light! Always writing, teaching what I found good and right! Robbed-starved-beaten-blinded, wide astray! Back with the full truth I've gained, back to the way: Smile, help teach the whole Human race, the Moral ABC of ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH, LIGHTNING-LIKE STRONG & WE'RE ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE!
1. Always dilute for Shave-Shampoo-Massage-Dental-Soap Bath!
2.Peppermint is nature's own unsurpassed fragrant deodorant!
3.A dash is best...to brush dentures clean and fresh!
4.A dash in glass water = breath freshening Peppermint Soap!
5.For massage, dilute 1 part in 10 parts hot water! Not oil!
6. Apply Peppermint Soap dry, to clean ant-mosquito-tick-fly!
7.Dilute with hot water to clean and freshen from head to toe!
8.Peppermint Oil Soap for Dispensers-Uniforms-Baby-Beach!
9.3 dashes in water rinse most Sprays off fruit and vegetables!
10.1% soap in water SPRAYS-CLEANS flowers & fruit trees!
HEALTH IS OUR GREATEST WEALTH, "K" c.1973 "ALL-ONE"
DON'T DRINK SOAP! KEEP OUT OF EYE! DILUTE! DILUTE! OK!
Please instruct IRS to release astronomer Israel's 6000 year "ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH" assets, so that at age 80, tortured-blinded, we can find younger Americans to help complete: 1st: Our 1200 acre California rain forest, 1 trillion trees are needed to survive! 2nd: Our 13 Essene Birth-Control Patents, like #4,108,396, before overpopulation destroys all life! and 3rd: Our 7 different 'Dr.Bronner's Magic Soaps' teach the Moral ABC, that 6 billion strong, lightning-like unites all mankind free in our Eternal Father's great "ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH," P.O.Box 28, Escondido 92033 CA (619) 743-2211 "ALL-ONE." SEE QUART LABEL. Scrolls: $10 for 10; $3 for 1.
[Read 'em loud, and read 'em proud.]
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
You're creating an atheist church, for the religiously atheistic, dedicated to the worship of what?
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
You're creating an atheist church, for the religiously atheistic, dedicated to the worship of what?
The self. Once youre an athiest, you have only yourself to worship. Let the self aggrandizement begin.
-
The self. Once youre an athiest, you have only yourself to worship. Let the self aggrandizement begin.
Yeah but in my case.. I'm worth it, dude.
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
You're creating an atheist church, for the religiously atheistic, dedicated to the worship of what?
The self. Once youre an athiest, you have only yourself to worship. Let the self aggrandizement begin.
You need a whole church and all the trappings that come with it to have reverence for yourself?
You must be battling an inferiority complex.
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
You're creating an atheist church, for the religiously atheistic, dedicated to the worship of what?
The self. Once youre an athiest, you have only yourself to worship. Let the self aggrandizement begin.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm no where close to being an atheist and I worship myself. Once you start worshipping yourself, you begin to realize just how connected the microcosm and macrocosm really are.
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
You're creating an atheist church, for the religiously atheistic, dedicated to the worship of what?
The self. Once youre an athiest, you have only yourself to worship. Let the self aggrandizement begin.
You need a whole church and all the trappings that come with it to have reverence for yourself?
You must be battling an inferiority complex.
I was being sarcastic on creating a church...
-
I am a Christian in that I was raised in the religion and it is how I identify demographically. I also think Christian morality is a good basis for civilization, however I am not a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist. Overall however, I think that we are in a constant state of inquiry so I can't stick with one dogma. Ultimately though my inquiry has led me to believe that there is a supernatural world beyond the spiritual and that Christianity comes closer to the truth than any other, so I voted for it in the poll. I guess I am a Christian, no matter how much of a rebel I am.
-
I am a Christian in that I was raised in the religion and it is how I identify demographically. I also think Christian morality is a good basis for civilization, however I am not a fundamentalist or a biblical literalist. Overall however, I think that we are in a constant state of inquiry so I can't stick with one dogma. Ultimately though my inquiry has led me to believe that there is a supernatural world beyond the spiritual and that Christianity comes closer to the truth than any other, so I voted for it in the poll. I guess I am a Christian, no matter how much of a rebel I am.
I think you and I might be on a similar page - I consider myself a pre-Nicaean Christian in that I don't believe that just because a bunch of bureaucrats decided that the books of Biblical canon were the inerrant word of God, that that makes it so. I furthermore reject all forms of hierarchy within the Church. Basically my dogma is limited to the words of Christ as recorded in the gospels. I think that in context, the epistles and letters to the Church constitute good advice, and I think that the Old Testament is mostly poetry and allegory.
What are your thoughts on those views?
-
I'm Creating the church of Atheism Give me all your money and i will keep the Mormons away and Dem other Pesky God people away
You're creating an atheist church, for the religiously atheistic, dedicated to the worship of what?
The self. Once youre an athiest, you have only yourself to worship. Let the self aggrandizement begin.
You need a whole church and all the trappings that come with it to have reverence for yourself?
You must be battling an inferiority complex.
I was being sarcastic on creating a church...
I know. I was also being sarcastic, but also half serious, because I find the implications of the need for an atheistic church to be amusing when one examines its purpose as an organization dedicated to the worship of something. I may be devoted to the concept and have reverence for the reasoning individual who doesn't rely on deities or other forms of false authority, but I'm hardly about to engage in worshipful public ceremonies...or maybe I should? I suppose, that for the atheist, music and the arts could serve that function.
-
I was being sarcastic on creating a church...
Damn.. and I was being lead to believe that you would be the Jim Bakker and I could be his masseuse ..
I think you and I might be on a similar page - I consider myself a pre-Nicaean Christian in that I don't believe that just because a bunch of bureaucrats decided that the books of Biblical canon were the inerrant word of God, that that makes it so. I furthermore reject all forms of hierarchy within the Church. Basically my dogma is limited to the words of Christ as recorded in the gospels. I think that in context, the epistles and letters to the Church constitute good advice, and I think that the Old Testament is mostly poetry and allegory.
What are your thoughts on those views?
I know you aren't asking me, but I actually find that perspective refreshing. You know my views and might think I'm talking shit- but I'm not.
-
I think you and I might be on a similar page - I consider myself a pre-Nicaean Christian in that I don't believe that just because a bunch of bureaucrats decided that the books of Biblical canon were the inerrant word of God, that that makes it so. I furthermore reject all forms of hierarchy within the Church. Basically my dogma is limited to the words of Christ as recorded in the gospels. I think that in context, the epistles and letters to the Church constitute good advice, and I think that the Old Testament is mostly poetry and allegory.
What are your thoughts on those views?
Are you reading the same Old Testament as me? because the one I read is full of psychotic violence and arbitrary "morals" that don't make any fucking sense. Also I don't see how you can throw out some parts of the bible and not others. Either it is the word of god, or its not, either its all true or its not, and if you claim some parts are really from god then you need some evidence of why all the other parts aren't from god. Why believe a book that says there is a omni-max super being who created the universe but not believe it when it tells you to its okay to beat your slaves as long as they don't die on the same day?
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Kill Sons of Sinners
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
More Rape and Baby Killing
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Real poetic.
More murderous bible quotes (http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm)
Rape in the Bible (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm)
Old and New Testament Slavery (http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm)
All the, "the bible can be a good book to live your life by" sentiment makes me fucking sick. As if humans where so desperate and uncaring that they needed an book to tell them its wrong to hurt people.
The vast majority of Christians ignore or disobey the vast majority of rules and commands in the bible. I would put money that no one in this forum follows over 50% of the rules in the bible, you would have to be a fucking psychotic to commit to such a level of hate and violence.
People are moral IN SPITE of the Bible, not because of it. I've never been to a religious ceremony, I've read the bible once in my whole life and found it to be a horrible book of bullshit, yet somehow I've managed not to harm or steal from anyone. From what I hear from the religious, without a strong religious faith my life should be in chaos, I shouldn't know right from wrong, and I should have no meaning in my life.
According to the Bible I should be dropping people left right and center for infractions against god, but even the fundies don't really buy into it 100% (with a few exceptions (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html)). Humans innately understand its wrong to kill people who haven't harmed you, which explains why the majority of religious people don't follow all the murder commands in their holy books, and why there isn't a huge immorality rate for non religious people.
It's just a book of old myths, just like any other major religion. I've never seen any evidence to prove one religion to be more likely than another, and if you can't prove your religion over others then you have no reason to believe "your" religion over others. If someone has evidence that backs up their belief, I'd like to see it and if you don't think its important to be able to prove your beliefs then that's fine to.
edit : MacFall, this post isn't to rag on you, your line on the old testament being mainly allegory set me off, although I am interested in your views on why you don't buy into parts of the OT but you buy into the idea of god presented in the same book.
-
Those laws only apply to Jews, and besides you're taking some of them out of context.
-
Did anyone else notice that the poll-takers identifying themselves as Christian jumped from two to six rather suddenly?
-
Those laws only apply to Jews, and besides you're taking some of them out of context.
If Christians say the bible is the word of god, and that shit is in the bible, then I'm going to assume they think that shit applies to them. Whether you think it applies to them or not is a non issue. If they are Christians who say that the OT doesn't apply/doesn't matter, then I'm curious as to what evidence they have to dispute the religious veracity of the OT that doesn't discount the NT.
How does the context I missed out dispute the face value of those passages?
Even if 1 in 10 of those were right (and there are a hell of alot of other ones), then that's still a whole fuckload of rape, slavery, murder and bigotry.
-
Those laws only apply to Jews, and besides you're taking some of them out of context.
If Christians say the bible is the word of god, and that shit is in the bible, then I'm going to assume they think that shit applies to them. Whether you think it applies to them or not is a non issue. If they are Christians who say that the OT doesn't apply/doesn't matter, then I'm curious as to what evidence they have to dispute the religious veracity of the OT that doesn't discount the NT.
How does the context I missed out dispute the face value of those passages?
Even if 1 in 10 of those were right (and there are a hell of alot of other ones), then that's still a whole fuckload of rape, slavery, murder and bigotry.
One thing I have always wondered about as a Jew is why the Xtians [sic] don't keep kosher, if they believe in the Bible.
-
One thing I have always wondered about as a Jew is why the Xtians [sic] don't keep kosher, if they believe in the Bible.
.
I wonder why many jews don't.
But paul said it was OK not to be kosher. I never liked paul. It was easier to convert pagans with less rules.
-
Those laws only apply to Jews, and besides you're taking some of them out of context.
If Christians say the bible is the word of god, and that shit is in the bible, then I'm going to assume they think that shit applies to them. Whether you think it applies to them or not is a non issue. If they are Christians who say that the OT doesn't apply/doesn't matter, then I'm curious as to what evidence they have to dispute the religious veracity of the OT that doesn't discount the NT.
How does the context I missed out dispute the face value of those passages?
Even if 1 in 10 of those were right (and there are a hell of alot of other ones), then that's still a whole fuckload of rape, slavery, murder and bigotry.
A Christian, by definition, is someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Did you see any teachings of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament?
-
A Christian, by definition, is someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Did you see any teachings of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament?
John 7:16
Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
Yes... I do find the doctrine of He who sent Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father
Also found in the Old Testament.
-
I think you and I might be on a similar page - I consider myself a pre-Nicaean Christian in that I don't believe that just because a bunch of bureaucrats decided that the books of Biblical canon were the inerrant word of God, that that makes it so. I furthermore reject all forms of hierarchy within the Church.
So does that mean your a Unitarian, or do you accept the Trinity?
I see little difference between Islam and pre-Nicaean Unitarian Christianity.
-
A Christian, by definition, is someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Did you see any teachings of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament?
John 7:16
Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
Yes... I do find the doctrine of He who sent Jesus Christ in the Old Testament.
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father
Also found in the Old Testament.
Okay, but neither of those quotes come from the actual Old Testament.
-
One thing I have always wondered about as a Jew is why the Xtians [sic] don't keep kosher, if they believe in the Bible.
.
I wonder why many jews don't.
But paul said it was OK not to be kosher. I never liked paul. It was easier to convert pagans with less rules.
So it went something like this:
Pagan 1; Man, this Paul guy is a damn good speaker, but his book is really hard
Pagan2: yeah, there are a lot of rules in it and stuff. I dont want to do it.
Pagan 1: and its so long too. Theres like 2 whole parts to it. Oh man, this is gonna take me forever to read, and first I have to learn to read.
Pagan 3: Naw, you dont have to DO the stuff in the first half, its in there for like.... show and stuff. Paul says you can ignore all the stuff about what you have to do, and as long as you believe in the second half, youre cool.
as for Jews who dont keep kosher, they need to start, its not like the have another option.
-
So it went something like this:
Pagan 1; Man, this Paul guy is a damn good speaker, but his book is really hard
Pagan2: yeah, there are a lot of rules in it and stuff. I dont want to do it.
Pagan 1: and its so long too. Theres like 2 whole parts to it. Oh man, this is gonna take me forever to read, and first I have to learn to read.
Pagan 3: Naw, you dont have to DO the stuff in the first half, its in there for like.... show and stuff. Paul says you can ignore all the stuff about what you have to do, and as long as you believe in the second half, youre cool.
as for Jews who dont keep kosher, they need to start, its not like the have another option.
+1
-
One thing I have always wondered about as a Jew is why the Xtians [sic] don't keep kosher, if they believe in the Bible.
.
I wonder why many jews don't.
But paul said it was OK not to be kosher. I never liked paul. It was easier to convert pagans with less rules.
So it went something like this:
Pagan 1; Man, this Paul guy is a damn good speaker, but his book is really hard
Pagan2: yeah, there are a lot of rules in it and stuff. I dont want to do it.
Pagan 1: and its so long too. Theres like 2 whole parts to it. Oh man, this is gonna take me forever to read, and first I have to learn to read.
Pagan 3: Naw, you dont have to DO the stuff in the first half, its in there for like.... show and stuff. Paul says you can ignore all the stuff about what you have to do, and as long as you believe in the second half, youre cool.
as for Jews who dont keep kosher, they need to start, its not like the have another option.
If this wasn't a pretty accurate description of how most Christians act today, I would lambast your assertion that the ancient pagan cults and religions were stupid, or moronic in any way.
-
In most conversion of ancient heathenism there wasn't much discussion and much sword , spear and axe...Axes for chopping down the holy groves, trees and god-statues in my heathen ancestors lands.
-
In most conversion of ancient heathenism there wasn't much discussion and much sword , spear and axe...Axes for chopping down the holy groves, trees and god-statues in my heathen ancestors lands.
Yep. It was pretty brutal stuff.
Not that the pagans don't have their share of blood on their hands either, though...
-
Yeah, but not over trying to convert folk. Just stupid wars over territory and other things yeah.
-
Yep. It was pretty brutal stuff.
Not that the pagans don't have their share of blood on their hands either, though...
You know, I was thinking about this after I arrived at that statistic. 1 in every 2000 Muslims are on the Terrorist Watch list. Because there are more than 2000 people in my community here. So I started thinking to myself... who's the terrorist? Now first off... let me caveat this by saying that I don't know anyone who is actually violent or plotting. But two people came to mind. The first is this crazy old Egyptian man that sits in the mosque and spouts off stuff like, clapping is a sin because the West came up with it and Muhammad never did it. Like he calls the Imam a hypocrite because he gives his sermon from a podium and the podium is a Western innovation, not Islamic. He's a hard nosed Salafi and everyone in the community knows and warns people not to listen to him. The other is a guy is a recent convert who romanticises terrorist violence... and sometimes it's spooky. I know more than a handful of people who think he's a government plant, because is family is all bureaucrats. I don't believe this because I've seen how he lives, where he works, etc. I've taken it upon myself to get close to him, and attempt to redirect his thinking. And if he ever proposed any kind of plot I'd turn him in in a heartbeat.
I've been thinking about this compaired to my old pagan community, which was only about one tenth the size. But I can think probably 10 people from those days that romanticised violence the way this guy does, mainly targeting Christians. I saw alot of resentment toward Christianity for medieval forced conversions... weird. Anyway, the worst of them actually spoke as if he planned to renew an old Native American tradition (which I think he fabricated) of sending out your warriors until they reached a village that spoke a different language and then killing everyone and returning with their wealth and women. He wanted to build a compound and Arizona, and there were a handful of people who liked the way he spoke. It was never going to happen, but the propensity was there. As a rival community leader I took it upon myself to sew the seeds of discord in his "family." Today we're still friends and he's mellowed out alot since having children.
But to me it begs the question, if there were 2 billion pagans in the world would they be more or less violent than Muslims? How would that resentment manifest if guys like this had a critical mass of followers?
I'm not suggesting paganism is inherently violent. I find it to be one of the most peaceful and tolerent perspectives on the planet. I just have theological disagreements. I'm just wondering if isn't enevitable to flind lunatics with followers in any demographic of 2 billion. What would we see in a world with 2 billion atheists? We have a very insulated view of Christianity here in the US... I wonder if we'd even recognize the Christianity in places like Sudan and Ethiopia.
Just thinking out loud.
-
Just so you know saying "pagans" or "paganism" as if you're talking about a single belief or group is folly. I was going to point that out to Josh because in his post stating "pagans have a share of blood on their hands" seems to imply there was a group called "pagans" acting as a group in ancient times. There were folk who followed the traditional religions of their culture and that was most folk and then there were the weird cultists called Christians and Muslims who believed that there was only one god and that one god was theirs.
Your average joe back then who was not part of one of the new religions wasn't interested in trying to go and convert anyone to his belief system. I don't know of any of the old non-Abrahamic religions that wanted to convert anyone, let alone convert anyone by sword and spear.
-
Just so you know saying "pagans" or "paganism" as if you're talking about a single belief or group is folly.
I know, sorry. I was sacrificing accuracy for brevity. When I was "pagan" I rejected the term in favor of "heathen." When people started pushing the term "neo-pagan" I rejected it for "retro-heathen." I'm not really talking about ancient peoples. I'm talking about today's pagan population, in all it's distinct traditions. But my point was not about paganism specifically, that just happens to be non-Muslim community I have the most first hand experience with. My point... well really my question... was about the perception created by the minority in huge demographics.
-
It's the same way today. I don't use the term "pagan" for myself for several reasons. One its just ridiculously broad and mostly "pagan" is used as "neo-pagan" or "Wiccan". Which is not what I am. Most neo-pagans and/or Wiccan's I've met tend to be socialist and a little on the kooky, ultra-feminist side. While most Asatruar/Germanic Heathens I've met tend to either be libertarian or paleo-conservative.
As far as Islam goes, you can't even say "Muslim" and be accurate when calling someone "Muslim" right? I mean aren't there quite a few Muslim traditions within Islam? Sunni, Shia and others?
-
Most neo-pagans and/or Wiccan's I've met tend to be socialist and a little on the kooky, ultra-feminist side. While most Asatruar/Germanic Heathens I've met tend to either be libertarian or paleo-conservative.
Good God Yes! True that. I remember trying to date those Luna Loonies as a Anarchist Asatru... what a nightmare.
Yeah, it's difficult to make any definative statements with the word Muslim. The confusion is that Muslim is scriptural while Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi etc are distinctions made later. So everyone uses the word. I use the word because I identify with it's literal meaning, Mu="one who" Salam="Submits/is at peace". A Musilm is a person obedient to the Will of God... everything else is up in the air.
-
Yeah, it's difficult to make any definative statements with the word Muslim. The confusion is that Muslim is scriptural while Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi etc are distinctions made later. So everyone uses the word. I use the word because I identify with it's literal meaning, Mu="one who" Salam="Submits/is at peace". A Musilm is a person obedient to the Will of God... everything else is up in the air.
Yep. That's what I figured.
-
When I said pagan, I meant it as an umbrella term, just like I would use secularist for atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc.
I'm well aware of the in-happenings of the pagan community in general. I know most of them like to be called by their respective titles, and not pagan.
-
One thing I have always wondered about as a Jew is why the Xtians [sic] don't keep kosher, if they believe in the Bible.
.
I wonder why many jews don't.
But paul said it was OK not to be kosher. I never liked paul. It was easier to convert pagans with less rules.
as for Jews who dont keep kosher, they need to start, its not like the have another option.
Bah, you know I'm never going to keep kosher to the standards of Chabad. It's not that I like pork, its just that I like halibut to much.
-
...
I don't know of any of the old non-Abrahamic religions that wanted to convert anyone, let alone convert anyone by sword and spear.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of Baal? That's just one example, but there are countless examples. Egypt anyone? Prior to Judaism pretty much every religion in the Middle East converted by sword and spear!
-
...
I don't know of any of the old non-Abrahamic religions that wanted to convert anyone, let alone convert anyone by sword and spear.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of Baal? That's just one example, but there are countless examples. Egypt anyone? Prior to Judaism pretty much every religion in the Middle East converted by sword and spear!
This is true.
One word: Rome.
-
I think you and I might be on a similar page - I consider myself a pre-Nicaean Christian in that I don't believe that just because a bunch of bureaucrats decided that the books of Biblical canon were the inerrant word of God, that that makes it so. I furthermore reject all forms of hierarchy within the Church.
So does that mean your a Unitarian, or do you accept the Trinity?
I see little difference between Islam and pre-Nicaean Unitarian Christianity.
I'm a Trinitarian, I suppose, if that's the only option other than Unitarianism. But I'm not in line with Evangelical Trinitarianism. I see the Father/Son/Spirit distinction as thing which God (the person) does, rather than three actual persons.
-
One thing I have always wondered about as a Jew is why the Xtians [sic] don't keep kosher, if they believe in the Bible.
.
I wonder why many jews don't.
But paul said it was OK not to be kosher. I never liked paul. It was easier to convert pagans with less rules.
as for Jews who dont keep kosher, they need to start, its not like the have another option.
Bah, you know I'm never going to keep kosher to the standards of Chabad. It's not that I like pork, its just that I like halibut to much.
I always find it strange when my diet follows kosher law more than some jews. I don't eat any animal products, so my diet is pretty much kosher.
Jews make some pretty good fake dairy products (http://tofutti.com/index.shtml#).
http://tofutti.com/Mintz_Makes_Tofutti.pdf
-
I generally eat Kosher, with some deviation. I like my steak rare for instance, and I love seafood. Nevertheless, those are rare indulgences for me. Not because of some kind of conviction one way or the other - I just recognize that the Kosher laws were sound dietary advice.
-
I generally eat Kosher, with some deviation. I like my steak rare for instance, and I love seafood. Nevertheless, those are rare indulgences for me. Not because of some kind of conviction one way or the other - I just recognize that the Kosher laws were sound dietary advice.
Is seafood not Kosher? I keep Kosher in the sense that I keep Halal which includes Kosher. I know there's some difference of opinion as to whether or not Shell fish is Halal, where there is no uncertainty that it isn't Kosher. But what about regular seafood?
-
Is seafood not Kosher?
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
-
Does the seafood have fins and scales?
-
Few Christians actually read the Bible in the early days of the religion. Priests handled all of that. For one thing, Bibles were in Greek or Latin. Also, books were god-awful expensive, and hardly anyone except the wealthy could afford them. Churches, if they had a Bible at all, had only one, which the priest read and then conveyed to his flock. And, there was just one official interpretation for everything in the Bible.
Much of the Old Testament law was considered obsolete with the coming of Jesus. However, whenever the Church desired to burn a witch or stone a homosexual, the old laws would be dragged out and dusted off.
It was not until the Reformation that common people started to read the Bible. Suddenly, everyone and his brother had their own interpretation of what the book meant. Since virtually anything between its covers can be read numerous ways, all bets were off! That's one of the keys to Christianity's success--it's so malleable that it can be twisted to whatever purpose one wishes.
-
I have to add that the interpretation of the bible was twisted before the reformation--actually, the reformation was a response to it--starting with the 95 theses and all. Of course, this guy, Luther, wrote the German translation, which he had Gutenberg print on his new invention. He brought the bible to the people could read along (and keep the church "honest.") Before that, it was about remembering what the priesthood taught.
-
How does god feel about Olestra? What hath the bible sayethed?
-
How does god feel about Olestra? What hath the bible sayethed?
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m63/kerrydustin/troll.jpg)
-
Still can't let bygones be bygones, eh? :)
-
Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of Baal? That's just one example, but there are countless examples. Egypt anyone? Prior to Judaism pretty much every religion in the Middle East converted by sword and spear!
Baalists did forceful conversions? Evidence? I've never heard of the ancient Egyptian religion doing that either. Evidence on that?
-
This is true.
One word: Rome.
Sorry, Rome never tried to convert anyone to the Religio Romana. They were religiously very tolerant and in fact never wanted non-Roman's practicing their religion. They conquered countries and for the most part left the countries alone to practice their own religion. This was when they were pagan of course. When they became Christian it was another matter.
-
Still can't let bygones be bygones, eh? :)
A truce without terms is like peace without a cease fire. Bygones as soon as you agree to stop categorizing me with lunatics who throw acid on people... and other trollish behavior.
-
I thought shellfish was haram.....................
-
It was the practice of ancient polythiests to convert those whom they conquered. The conquered people would submit to it because they reasoned:
Hey, we asked help from our gods and they ddnt work, so theirs must be more powerful then.
The world went on like this with one polythiest geoup conquering another. When Alexander the Great conquered Egypt he made ammon equal to zeus.
It went on like this war after war untill the Hellinists lost to the Hashmonians.
-
It was the practice of ancient polythiests to convert those whom they conquered. The conquered people would submit to it because they reasoned:
Hey, we asked help from our gods and they ddnt work, so theirs must be more powerful then.
The world went on like this with one polythiest geoup conquering another. When Alexander the Great conquered Egypt he made ammon equal to zeus.
It went on like this war after war untill the Hellinists lost to the Hashmonians.
Maybe with some of the ancient pagans but did the reason the nations and tribes conquer the other was to convert them or was it an effect of the conquering? I've done a lot of research on this throughout my life and I've never heard of one of these nations conquering another to convert them.
-
I thought shellfish was haram.....................
Difference of opinion. I think most schools consider it Makruh, which means that it's not sinful to eat, but it's beneficial to avoid. But I've heard opinions that it's haram, and halal. I generally avoid it unless I have no other options.
also
When the first Christian missionaries arrived in Japan newly-converted Christians were forced to return to Buddhism with the threat of death if they would not trample upon images of the Virgin and child.
Christian converts in India have been forced to return to Hinduism throughout history. Some temples have "re-conversion" rituals. In Karnataka India violence between Christians and Hindus has escalated since 2006 and just recently resulted in Hindu Nationalists forcing conversions on their Christian minority.
-
Maybe with some of the ancient pagans but did the reason the nations and tribes conquer the other was to convert them or was it an effect of the conquering? I've done a lot of research on this throughout my life and I've never heard of one of these nations conquering another to convert them.
Am I missing something? I've never heard of any group conquering to convert. I've only heard of forced conversions from any faith in the context of a response to a wave of conversions out of a faith, or a as a kind of ideological genocide inside an existent empire.
-
[/quote]
Maybe with some of the ancient pagans but did the reason the nations and tribes conquer the other was to convert them or was it an effect of the conquering? I've done a lot of research on this throughout my life and I've never heard of one of these nations conquering another to convert them.
[/quote]
You conquer to conquer. Thats how wealth would be built up. The conversions were to eliminate cultural differences.
-
Am I missing something? I've never heard of any group conquering to convert. I've only heard of forced conversions from any faith in the context of a response to a wave of conversions out of a faith, or a as a kind of ideological genocide inside an existent empire.
Islamic and Christian nations would conquer pagan tribes and nations specifically to make them Muslim or Christian yes. Happened with most of Europe. Big-time with Charles the Saxon slayer of the Franks. He was a personal quest to Christianize the Saxons. Some Pope (I can't remember which) had the Teutonic Knights and others try and conquer Lithuania because it was still pagan. It was the last pagan hold out in Europe and it was never converted by sword, but eventually chose to convert.
-
You conquer to conquer. Thats how wealth would be built up. The conversions were to eliminate cultural differences.
That still misses my point. They didn't conquer to convert them as a mission. Their conversion was an after-effect.
-
Correct. Conversion was not the purpose. Increasing hegemony was.
-
Islamic and Christian nations would conquer pagan tribes and nations specifically to make them Muslim or Christian yes. Happened with most of Europe. Big-time with Charles the Saxon slayer of the Franks. He was a personal quest to Christianize the Saxons. Some Pope (I can't remember which) had the Teutonic Knights and others try and conquer Lithuania because it was still pagan. It was the last pagan hold out in Europe and it was never converted by sword, but eventually chose to convert.
Those are all Christian examples. Do you have an Islamic Example? I'm not arguing with you. It's alot of history, I don't know for sure. From what I've read Islamic Empires conquered without forced conversions, and there are only a couple of tyrants, and a handful of modern Radicals that forced conversion in their own lands. I'll do the research myself if you'll point me in a direction.
-
Those are all Christian examples. Do you have an Islamic Example? I'm not arguing with you. It's alot of history, I don't know for sure. From what I've read Islamic Empires conquered without forced conversions, and there are only a couple of tyrants, and a handful of modern Radicals that forced conversion in their own lands. I'll do the research myself if you'll point me in a direction.
The Mughal and Turk invaders forcibly converted millions of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to Islam. The Jizia and several other oppressive taxes and rules were forced down upon the Kafirs/Infidels. A few examples.
-
The Mughal and Turk invaders forcibly converted millions of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to Islam. The Jizia and several other oppressive taxes and rules were forced down upon the Kafirs/Infidels. A few examples.
Cool thanks
-
Am I missing something? I've never heard of any group conquering to convert. I've only heard of forced conversions from any faith in the context of a response to a wave of conversions out of a faith, or a as a kind of ideological genocide inside an existent empire.
Religion has been used as an excuse or one of the reasons to conquer. The Spanish conquestidors (or conquerors) brout religious leaders with them to the Americas to convert the Indians they didn't kill. REligion has been used as a tool of assimilation which was the case when the U.S. government implemeted it's policy of assimilating Indians. Indian children were forced to attended government schools established specifically for them and they were taught christianity. Even if a conquering military does not force conversion they have imposed religious laws and customs. Certainly there have been religions that have a holy book that say that they are to convert their enemies.
-
Those are all Christian examples. Do you have an Islamic Example? I'm not arguing with you. It's alot of history, I don't know for sure. From what I've read Islamic Empires conquered without forced conversions, and there are only a couple of tyrants, and a handful of modern Radicals that forced conversion in their own lands. I'll do the research myself if you'll point me in a direction.
The Mughal and Turk invaders forcibly converted millions of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to Islam. The Jizia and several other oppressive taxes and rules were forced down upon the Kafirs/Infidels. A few examples.
That would explain in part why today there are many people in those places who are islamists. Of course Pakistan split from India over religion.
-
I thought shellfish was haram.....................
..derr..
I thought Harems smelled like shellfish..
(Pardon the grosse trollishness of this post, couldn't resist given the circumstances. It is an interesting discussion..)
-
..derr..
I thought Harems smelled like shellfish..
(Pardon the grosse trollishness of this post, couldn't resist given the circumstances. It is an interesting discussion..)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Troll_nicht_fuettern_gruen.png)
-
The reason pagan/tribal religions seem to have been less violent than modern theistic ones is because of the centralization of political power which corresponded to the rise of Christianity and Islam. Constantine didn't use Christianity to turn Rome into an engine of violence - he used the unprecedented concentration of power in Rome's state apparatus to use Christians as instruments of violence.
The Holy Roman Empire was a permutation of Roman central-statism, and it was the decentralized political environment of Medieval Europe that kept its expansion in check. Simultaneously, the Church kept the secular state powers from consolidating until the Protestant Reformation, at which point the nation state began to form in the vacuum.
I'm currently doing research for a book about this which will be called Pope and Pagan: A History of Church and State, from Nero to the Religious Right. It takes a sort of Hoppean view of European history, so I expect it will be very controversial amongst democracists. But it will probably be equally offensive to Christians of the Religious Right persuasion as well.
-
permutation
Stop. Right there. Let me see your drivers license.
-
I think he wants your ass, dude.
-
I think he wants your ass, dude.
The whole religion thing makes my dick soft, so no.
-
I think he wants your ass, dude.
The whole religion thing makes my dick soft, so no.
You can't tell me you wouldn't want to corrupt a young Christian boy like MacFall.
-
I think he wants your ass, dude.
The whole religion thing makes my dick soft, so no.
You can't tell me you wouldn't want to corrupt a young Christian boy like MacFall.
No, because then if I did he'd become all clingy and I'd have to break it off because of the Jesus shit and then he'd kill himself or something.
-
Pfft. Me being clingy is about as likely as all the politicians in Washington suddenly becoming libertarians and dissolving the state tomorrow morning.
In any case I am INCORRUPTIBLE*.
*beyond the level that is normal for a single hetero guy
-
I think he wants your ass, dude.
The whole religion thing makes my dick soft, so no.
You can't tell me you wouldn't want to corrupt a young Christian boy like MacFall.
No, because then if I did he'd become all clingy and I'd have to break it off because of the Jesus shit and then he'd kill himself or something.
Pfft. Me being clingy is about as likely as all the politicians in Washington suddenly becoming libertarians and dissolving the state.
You haven't experienced my charm.
-
You haven't experienced my charm.
That is an accurate statement.
-
You haven't experienced my charm.
That is an accurate statement.
Obviously I'm completely full of shit.
-
(http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/Entomology/images/Topics/importance/bogongMoth.jpg)
+
(http://worldofwonder.net/image1/womanwbigballs.jpg)
-
wat
-
wat
Your charm.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
Dude, my brain isn't good at this type of shit.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
Dude, my brain isn't good at this type of shit.
What kind of bug is that, and what is the very happy chick touching?
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
Dude, my brain isn't good at this type of shit.
What kind of bug is that, and what is the very happy chick touching?
So, what are you trying to say?
-
What kind of bug is that, and what is the very happy chick touching?
What very happy chick? All I see is a moth and a plus sign.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
Dude, my brain isn't good at this type of shit.
What kind of bug is that, and what is the very happy chick touching?
So, what are you trying to say?
That your charm has an overwhelming stench.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
Dude, my brain isn't good at this type of shit.
What kind of bug is that, and what is the very happy chick touching?
So, what are you trying to say?
That your charm has an overwhelming stench.
Until they realize that I'm fat.
-
wat
Your charm.
I don't get it.
You have to put two and two together.
Dude, my brain isn't good at this type of shit.
What kind of bug is that, and what is the very happy chick touching?
So, what are you trying to say?
That your charm has an overwhelming stench.
Until they realize that I'm fat.
That's called the Teddy Bear Factor.
-
Until they realize that I'm fat.
"Big boned"
-
Until they realize that I'm fat.
"Big boned"
Technically that is actually true, but I'm still fat.
-
The reason pagan/tribal religions seem to have been less violent than modern theistic ones is because of the centralization of political power which corresponded to the rise of Christianity and Islam.
But, pagan and tribal religions weren't (and aren't) less violent than modern ones. They regularly used human sacrifice, sometimes extremely gruesome. In Mesoamerica, for example, they killed victims by cutting out the living heart and feeding it to their god. Child sacrifice was often employed. And while Christians content themselves with dining on make-believe flesh, ancient pagans often ate the real thing.
-
The reason pagan/tribal religions seem to have been less violent than modern theistic ones is because of the centralization of political power which corresponded to the rise of Christianity and Islam.
But, pagan and tribal religions weren't (and aren't) less violent than modern ones. They regularly used human sacrifice, sometimes extremely gruesome. In Mesoamerica, for example, they killed victims by cutting out the living heart and feeding it to their god. Child sacrifice was often employed. And while Christians content themselves with dining on make-believe flesh, ancient pagans often ate the real thing.
And the 'victims' were often very happy to be sacrificed. For most, it was the highest honor they could have obtained in life. Why do you want to take that away from them?
-
Taors, i think thats an honor most people would prefer not to have. There is a very human instinct to live among us all.
Pagans were much more violent then civilized people are today. Take a look at the Gallic Wars for instance. The Gauls were forced out of their lands by Germans and started roaming around the Iberian peninsula before the Romans just went up to them and began massacering them. History is rife with examples of helots being killed by Spartans for sport, and body counts of previous wars in the spear and shield era exceed modern wars.
-
Pagans were much more violent then civilized people are today.
You mean like those civilized Russians during WWII who killed and tortured more folk than the Nazi's? What about them civilized Khmer Rouge who killed folk who wore eye-glasses? Or those civilized Nazi's who had a fantastic road system? Or those civilized Americans who throw folk in jail, steal their money and tortured because they use an herb that is against the law?
-
Pagans were much more violent then civilized people are today.
You mean like those civilized Russians during WWII who killed and tortured more folk than the Nazi's? What about them civilized Khmer Rouge who killed folk who wore eye-glasses? Or those civilized Nazi's who had a fantastic road system? Or those civilized Americans who throw folk in jail, steal their money and tortured because they use an herb that is against the law?
Semantics.
-
Should i reset the polls yes or no?
-
Should i reset the polls yes or no?
There's no point. You already ruined it.
-
Should i reset the polls yes or no?
There's no point. You already ruined it.
Should Mohammed make a new poll?
-
Should Mohammed make a new poll?
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=23355.msg427183#msg427183
-
Should i reset the polls yes or no?
There's no point. You already ruined it.
What ya mean? What's wrong with the poll results?
I hadn't noticed till now, but it looks as if the majority of voters are not buying in to any of these religions.
-
Should i reset the polls yes or no?
There's no point. You already ruined it.
What ya mean? What's wrong with the poll results?
I hadn't noticed till now, but it looks as if the majority of voters are not buying in to any of these religions.
No one said anything about the results.
-
added a few more options after most people had voted... so reset would be for people who wanted to pick a different option
-
Funny, I still cannot change my vote.
-
i haven't reset the polls yet if we get a few more people who want it reset i will reset it
-
i haven't reset the polls yet if we get a few more people who want it reset i will reset it
I don't think its necessary at all. Maybe one or two people will change their votes and thats it.
-
Who's the other Muslim?
-
Yeah...it's not necessary. After a couple of weeks (hopefully sooner) this thread will die, and then in a couple of months someone can make a similar thread, although much better.
-
What about "spiritual"? That should be an option.
-
What about "spiritual"? That should be an option.
There should be a lot of options that aren't there, but like I've said...
-
Yeah, like the One True Religion. Bonerjoeism.
-
I would have voted Bonerjoeism. His sermons, while reading from many different religious texts, are sure to be punctuated with an abundance of "WAT" 's .
-
"WAT" is acronym for something so holy that if you were to learn what it means and post about it I would be forced to kidnap you and bury you alive.
-
"WAT" is acronym for something so holy that if you were to learn what it means and post about it I would be forced to kidnap you and bury you alive.
Richard III knows wat it means.
-
"WAT" is acronym for something so holy that if you were to learn what it means and post about it I would be forced to kidnap you and bury you alive.
Nu-uh... :shock:
-
WAT: http://www.google.com/url?q=/finance%3Fclient%3Dob%26q%3DNYSE:WAT&sa=X&oi=stock&ct=title&usg=AFQjCNEeQwI6dBZ0646AJih1FNEDmGb33w