Damn you, religion!

[co05]

No, because Atheism doesnt provoke mass murder, genocide, and general hate towards innocent people.

It doesn't prevent it from happening.

EDIT: Or make it less of an occurrence.

 

[Jintor]

we're talking about religion, religion and spiritualism are very abstract ideas.

It's like trying to explain math with art, it's probably not going to work.

And whats going to happen to you if a bunch of people don't believe in evolution? Are we going to die or something?

If someone wants to believe in an imaginary friend let them, why the hell does that make you cry so much?

Because if you can believe in an imaginary friend in the sky, then you start believing that what that imaginary friend says is true. And when the imaginary friend starts saying things like "Gays do not have equal rights as other people" or "Invade Iraq"...

It doesn't prevent it from happening.

It's a shitload better than causing them to happen.

 

[MJ12]

No, because Atheism doesnt provoke mass murder, genocide, and general hate towards innocent people.

yeah except that one time when an extremist named Hitler used Darwin's ideas to murder millions of innocent people

But we don't go around saying Darwinism provokes mass murder now do we?

Thats exactly what you just did with this statement:

it's called an analogy.

 

[MJ12]

Because if you can believe in an imaginary friend in the sky, then you start believing that what that imaginary friend says is true. And when the imaginary friend starts saying things like "Gays do not have equal rights as other people" or "Invade Iraq"...

see, your making a generalization again. You can't say all people with religious or spiritual beliefs are mindless, stupid, or crazy. A lot of them are, yes, but a lot of them are not, a lot of them would much rather get along with someone on different beliefs.

Your just ramming beliefs down other people's throats now. Thats pretty hypocritical.

 

[Krynn72]

It doesn't prevent it from happening.

EDIT: Or make it less of an occurrence.

I strongly believe that it would make it less of an occurrence. Religious differences is on of the largest contributing factors to all those things. One needs only to look at our past for evidence.

yeah except that one time when an extremist named Hitler used Darwin's ideas to murder millions of innocent people

But we don't go around saying Darwinism provokes mass murder now do we?

No we dont. But insane ****s like Hitler are a different subject than religious institutions.

it's called an analogy.

Are you kidding me? No shit its an analogy. Its an analogy that compares apples and oranges.

 

[co05]

see, your making a generalization again. You can't say all people with religious or spiritual beliefs are mindless, stupid, or crazy. A lot of them are, yes, but a lot of them are not, a lot of them would much rather get along with someone on different beliefs.

Your just ramming beliefs down other people's throats now. Thats pretty hypocritical.

I agree. I acutally know quite a few Christians who are totally unlike the bigoted, gay hating Christians a lot of you are used to. The religious extremists are just a bad representation of the entire group. Punish them, not the other religious folk that do no harm.

 

[co05]

I strongly believe that it would make it less of an occurrence. Religious differences is on of the largest contributing factors to all those things. One needs only to look at our past for evidence.

Would you justify punishing someone for their religion?

 

[MJ12]

No we dont. But insane ****s like Hitler are a different subject than religious institutions.

Oh, it's different? So, having the majority of your country mindlessly listen to you about being hateful and prejudice towards everyone different (kind of like what your doing now) is different then the Church during the dark ages convincing people to mindlessly follow and hate muslims and go off and kill thousands of them?

Not very different at all.
There's extreme thiests, there's extreme athiests.
They are alike in their mindless hate.

Are you kidding me? No shit its an analogy. Its an analogy that compares apples and oranges.

No it doesnt, it compairs a percentage of two populations. A percentage that relates the serious problems to the large majority of the people within the country.
It's a pretty sound analogy.

 

[99.vikram]

No it doesnt, it compairs a percentage of two populations. A percentage that relates the serious problems to the large majority of the people within the country.
It's a pretty sound analogy.

1 in 12 people (8%) are extremists, according to that statistic.

Don't you think that's a disturbingly high figure?? :O

 

[Krynn72]

Would you justify punishing someone for their religion?

No, why would I? I am against their religion, not the person.

Oh, it's different? So, having the majority of your country mindlessly listen to you about being hateful and prejudice towards everyone different (kind of like what your doing now) is different then the Church during the dark ages convincing people to mindlessly follow and hate muslims and go off and kill thousands of them?

You know what? You're right. The church is just like Hitler. People blindly follow the churches orders which are based on severely distorted and manipulated ideas. And despite the blatantly obvious and hideous nature of the orders people will continue to commit heinous acts just because some people pretended that a "god" told them to do it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Not very different at all.
There's extreme thiests, there's extreme athiests.
They are alike in their mindless hate.

Atheists are not mindless in their hate. We hate the atrocious actions of religious institutions. Religious institutions hate innocent people for no real reason.

No it doesnt, it compairs a percentage of two populations. A percentage that relates the serious problems to the large majority of the people within the country.
It's a pretty sound analogy.

No its not. Its comparing two completely different statistics that have nothing to do with each other. You're analogy was pointless, and was a perfect example of a "apples to oranges comparison".

 

[Seagull]

yeah except that one time when an extremist named Hitler used Darwin's ideas to murder millions of innocent people

But we don't go around saying Darwinism provokes mass murder now do we?

I think a quote from Billy Madison is appropriate here...

"Mr. Madison(you), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room(thread) is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God(Science!) have mercy on your soul."

 

[co05]

No, why would I? I am against their religion, not the person.

Ok. If you're not against the person, then don't you believe they have the right to believe whatever they please?

 

[PvtRyan]

we're talking about religion, religion and spiritualism are very abstract ideas.

It's like trying to explain math with art, it's probably not going to work.

How is that relevant to my post?

And whats going to happen to you if a bunch of people don't believe in evolution? Are we going to die or something?

We would all be dead yes, if these were the people that scientific progress relied upon. Not "believing" in evolution is the rejection of the scientific method.

If someone wants to believe in an imaginary friend let them, why the hell does that make you cry so much?

It doesn't, until that belief affects me. Now, I never had much trouble in my life here in a country that's very secular with a majority of atheists, but boy I wouldn't wanna be gay in the US.

Considering that means 92% of them are not loonies, yeah, thats pretty insignificant when compaired with the majority

You might as well say 5% of Americans commit murder, that still leaves 95%that don't murder people.

Don't mix apples and oranges.

Listen to what you're saying man, 1 in 12 is a loony! And if 5% of Americans were murderers, you wouldn't see me walking on the streets, I'd be terrified. But murder is incidental, something like 1 in every few 100.000 people is a murderer, but when you're talking about nearly 1 in 10 people being religions fanatics, that's not incidental. Perhaps the concept of people being willing to use violence in name of their wildly subjective ideas isn't shocking enough for you for whatever reason, so I'll say it again: what if 8% of Muslims told you they would like to rape babies? ONE IN FUCKING TWELVE PEOPLE, are you insane?

And that's in secular countries like Germany and Britain. As for MODERATE Islamic societies, I'd like to show you this 2002 study:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165

That's from 2002, it will only have gotten worse since the Iraq and Lebanese wars. Not only that, but the 'rarely justified' has been added to the 'no' column, while rarely justified still means that on some occasions it's justified to BLOW INNOCENT CHILDREN UP IN A SUICIDE ATTACK, so 'rarely justified' belongs to 'yes' which will make the table look like:

Is it ever justified?
Country Yes No
Lebanon 82 12
Ivory Coast 73 27
Nigeria 66 26
Jordan 65 26
Bangladesh 58 23
Mali 54 35
Senegal 47 50
Ghana 44 43
Indonesia 43 54
Uganda 40 52
Pakistan 38 38
Turkey 20 64

Again, those are only the MODERATE countries. There's no Iraq, Syria or Iran here. Even in the very secular Turkey, 1 in 5 thinks it's ever OK to commit suicide bombings in name of Islam on innocents.

 

[soulslicer]

I did not really read throught thread but..

What do you people think of the Muslim insurgency in thailand, where the (10 percent muslim population) of muslims are killing the peaceful Buddhists. It's very sad.

 

[Raxxman]

It's a bit of a sweeping statement to say religion is the cause of these wars. Such events used in religions name always have real world motives behind them.

Religion is the weak mans excuse for voilence. Unable to take the burden of the horrible acts they commit instead shoulder the blame on God (we do Gods will).

 

[noQ]

Chloroform and some surprise action with the holy stick might do the trick.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

i believe in evolution, but who gives a care really if 55% of america doesn't believe in evolution? What's going to happen?

Well, for a start they want creationsim taught along side evolution, or even have no evolution at all. They have caused a signifcant drop in the funding of stem cells, and discrimate and condemn gays, lesbians, atheists, satanists, and scientists (because a "christian scientist" is not a scientist).

 

[Jintor]

see, your making a generalization again. You can't say all people with religious or spiritual beliefs are mindless, stupid, or crazy. A lot of them are, yes, but a lot of them are not, a lot of them would much rather get along with someone on different beliefs.

Your just ramming beliefs down other people's throats now. Thats pretty hypocritical.

If this actually happens to a majority of people, is it still a generalisation?

 

[Raxxman]

That's a good definition of generalization.

 

[Jintor]

Can you have a correct generalisation? I forget.

 

[15357]

Chloroform and some surprise action with the holy stick might do the trick.

Uh, that's kinda like how I make liquid explosives (except that I make it a quick reaction, no ice, and more acetone + salt). D:



No wonder I kept getting dizzy. :O

 

[Danimal]

It shames me to see a current lack of Absinthe.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh, that's "valid", I would love to see the percentage of these fundamentalist believers? -Wait, infact I'll find it.

Poll Taken-
Object to stoning for adultery: 63.3 percent.
Oppose the death penalty for Muslims converting from Islam: 71.2 percent.
Oppose making women wear Muslim dress: 77 percent.
Against cutting off the hand of a thief: 77.3 percent.

In a survey of ten surveys, I find that "more than half of British Muslims want Islamic law and 5% endorse violence to achieve that end.

Oh boy, 5%!!!! Yeah, thats SO SIGNIFICANT

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/456
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14404_1.html

-Ut oh, that survey has 8%, look out, it's increased by 3% UT OH!!!

Wow... Seriously. Just wow. This is your overwhelming evidence that fundamentalism is marginal? Almost 40% do believe in stoning for adultery. 30% do want the death pentalty for converters. Over 20% do want the severing of limbs for crimes. These are not sizable percentages? These are not indications of popularity? You're living in a dream world. Wake the fuck up.

You have also failed to read your own sources. The Beliefnet article is limited to the United States, which last I checked was not a bastion of Muslim power. The Washington Post article clearly states:

"The one exception is attitudes toward suicide bombings of U.S and Western targets in Iraq, a subject on which Muslims were divided. Roughly half of Muslims in Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco said such attacks are justifiable, while sizable majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia disagreed."

That is still a significant portion of Muslims that view suicide bombings of Western targets in Iraq as justified.

You have also, once more, mischaracterized my argument. You've attacked a very narrow facet of fundamentalism - how many theists are willing to use violence - while ignoring what my general point has been all along: Whether fundamentalism is popular. You do not have to be a murderer to be a fundamentalist. Now that I've dragged you back to the original platform of this debate before you started dropping straw men left and right, let's look at the one from Daniel Pipes.

"In a survey of ten surveys, I find that "more than half of British Muslims want Islamic law and 5% endorse violence to achieve that end."

More than 50% of Muslims want secular law thrown out and want the Shariah as a replacement. This is not an ideal born from moderation.

The new "Centrum voor Radicalisme en Extremisme Studies" at the University of Amsterdam has researched the radicalization of Moroccan youth and found that 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy, while 6-7 percent of them are prepared to use force to defend Islam.

Almost half of the Islamic youth in the Netherlands are refusing to integrate into its culture and would prefer it if its democratic government did not exist. What's their idea for a replacement? I'll let you take a wild guess. This is not an ideal born from moderation.

"In Palestinian Authority elections, the Islamist terrorist group Hamas won 44 percent of the popular vote."

Nearly half of the voters elected a militant Islamist organization. A terrorist group that dishes out violent propaganda and calls for the destruction of Israel. I think you see where this is heading.

"Two just-released opinion surveys of British Muslims suggest a very substantial Islamist percentage. Of the many questions asked, perhaps the most revealing in this regard is the one whether the respondent agrees that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end." An astounding 1/3rd of those asked did agree with this statement."

I could go on, but I think I've demonstrated my point. There is very little in your sources that has strengthened your argument. To the contrary, you actually supplied an excellent opportunity in showing how popular fundamentalism is. Also, kudos to PvtRyan for the study he referenced. I always like that one.

Once, again, do your research-
the catholic church contrubutes the largest ammount of money to various charities in the entire world.

The Catholic Church's benevolence is hamstrung by religious dogma that sometimes verges on being genocidal. Money and missionaries sent to Africa have good intent, but it comes with the strings attached. Namely, preaching of condom use as sinful. This is in areas where no other source of reliable information on contraception is available and where AIDS runs rampant. The Catholic Church's aid does little fucking good if the people they're helping are dying because of Christian prudery over sex.

To say that religion is a force for good in any meaningful sense, it should be easy to establish that a lack of faith would entail an approach of apathy or even evil. But this is not the case. Secular doctors give aid without the preaching. It is enough to be motivated by human compassion. Christians giving aid may be truly motivated by the suffering of others, but they are ill-equipped if they try to factor their religion into it. Dangerously so, as is often the case.

oh yeah, and not to mention this-
Some dude supposedly came along named "Jesus", personally I don't think he's god, but he basically taught everyone to stop cutting off their neighbor's hand when they steal, and to stop ripping out people's eyes if they did you wrong, and to care for the minority, and the diseased and poor of society, taught people to love regardless, taught people to forgive. He basically chilled out an entire extremist society, which would later be pasted down and used as an example for society for thousands of years.
-Yeah, thats sooo bad

You don't understand anything about Jesus or the New Testament, or even the Bible in general for that matter.

Yes, Jesus was a big step up from the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament, but that doesn't amount to much when he explicitly says that the OT still applies (Matthew 5:18). The Golden Rule is totally awesome until you start reaching the verses that lit the fires of the Inquisition (John 15:6). Jesus never abolished the slavery that was practiced and expected in the OT, but we are told in the NT that slaves should be extra nice to their Christian masters (Ephesians 6:5, Timothy 6:1).

Actually, here. Have a look at the glowing morality of Jesus and the New Testament. And in the future, you should probably be a bit more hesitant on commenting so fully on things you are ignorant about.

Sure during the dark ages there were some corrupt rich people in the church who f*cked things up, along with other people in history. But those are just some people, not significant when you weigh the pros

What pros?
What moral guidance does faith offer that cannot be derived from secular humanism?

Listen, I don't believe in Jesus, but the fact is his ideas to this day help the general society to act moral.
As sad as that is, without religion, society would be more immoral than it already is.

Bullshit. Jesus wasn't even original in his moral instructions. He's a mish-mashed ripoff of countless cultures and faiths that predated him. And no, he is not a source for morality in today's modern, civilized society. There are sound, credible, biological explanations for our ethical impulses that don't require believing in an immaculate conception. Moderates clearly pick and choose the parts of their religions which they like while casting out the nasty, clearly measuring up their holy texts against an independent moral standard (while being ignorant of the whole process it seems). We have grown more moral and tolerant by eroding faith, not taking it closer to heart.

The moral guidance that Jesus offered was mirrored more or less by every other society of his time and by those that existed before him. He was not unique, and he most certainly didn't offer the best path of morality.

 

[Bad^Hat]

It shames me to see a current lack of Absinthe.

Your wish is... Absinthe's command!

Seriously, I didn't read all of that, but judging by the veritable wall of text and quoting jamboree, I'd say someone just got Abs-owned-...nthe. (yeah, I'll work on that)

 

[Asknoone]

Absinthe, your babies if you please.

 

[Llama]

If there is a god, it will probably look like Absinthe

 

[CptStern]

Stern wins again.
Sorry.

6 pages and someone finally sees my joke for what it is: the only sane response possible :E kudos




uriel: Samon is definately not a waste of skin ..he sexifies this community by an additional 37% ...oh and your god commands you turn the other cheek ..well? turn the other mother****ing cheek goddamit

 

[Tyguy]

haha, i laughed at those numbers...im glad only 40 percent consider it their duty to stone people to death....

Im reminded of a piece of Carlin material..

"Do you believe in god?" "No" BANG
"Do you believe in god?" "Yes" "Do you believe in MY god?" "No" BANG

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

"Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire."

If only fundamentalists followed this combined with castration adn we woulnd't have a problem.

 

[Dinkleberry]

Something I had long forgotten about has resurfaced in my mind. Jangle, I present thee with the ultimate solution: http://divine-interventions.com/index2.php

 

[leib10]

haha, i laughed at those numbers...im glad only 40 percent consider it their duty to stone people to death....

Im reminded of a piece of Carlin material..

"Do you believe in god?" "No" BANG
"Do you believe in god?" "Yes" "Do you believe in MY god?" "No" BANG

Carlin is a genius.

 

[Polaris]

yeah except that one time when an extremist named Hitler used Darwin's ideas to murder millions of innocent people

He never used Darwin's ideas, he used prejudice and religious intolerance. Darwins ideas only explain how evolution works, that's all.

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

 

[CyberPitz]

He never used Darwin's ideas, he used prejudice and religious intolerance. Darwins ideas only explain how evolution works, that's all.

I can only imagine Hitlers speeches if he was using Darwin's ideas..

"For I will devour the very soul of those born from the ape. They are dirty, disgusting, and horrible creatures! I will cleanse the earth from the scourge that isn't of pure, human blood!"

Yeah, just doesn't work, sorry.

 

[Tyguy]

"All celestial teapots and spaghetti monsters will be cleansed from this society. BLOOD ALONE MOVES THE WHEELS OF HISTORY. THE WORLD IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD."

*Crowd cheers*

 

[Ravioli]

shes a christian......you know what to do, like someone said earlier

 

[MJ12]

He never used Darwin's ideas, he used prejudice and religious intolerance. Darwins ideas only explain how evolution works, that's all.

Oh yeah, except those films he would show demonstrating natural selection of the Wolf and the rabbit, and how the Wolf was like Germany and the Jews were like breeding rabbits that needed to be rid of because they are "rodents"

Or the idea of survival of the fittest, by attempting to make a master race of no cripples, no gays, no blacks, no jews, only caucasians with blonde hair and blue eyes.

-Yeah, none of that was Darwin influenced at all

DO THEY TEACH YOU THIS SHIT IN HISTORY CLASS, HAS THE EDUCATION SYSTEM REALLY BECOME THIS STUPID, OR DO ALL OF YOU JUST NOT PAY ATTENTION?

 

[theotherguy]

Oh yeah, except those films he would show demonstrating natural selection of the Wolf and the rabbit, and how the Wolf was like Germany and the Jews were like breeding rabbits that needed to be rid of because they are "rodents"

Or the idea of survival of the fittest, by attempting to make a master race of no cripples, no gays, no blacks, no jews, only caucasians with blonde hair and blue eyes.

-Yeah, none of that was Darwin influenced at all

DO THEY TEACH YOU THIS SHIT IN HISTORY CLASS, HAS THE EDUCATION SYSTEM REALLY BECOME THIS STUPID, OR DO ALL OF YOU JUST NOT PAY ATTENTION?

Thats utter bullshit. Just because idiots turn a lack of understanding of the theory of natural selection into eugenics and social Darwinism doesn't mean that the theory itself is "evil" or that Darwin's intent was eugenics and genocide.

Even so, Hitler was far more influenced by his catholic background and racist culture than by Darwinism.

I'm sorry zombie, but it appears you are the one who hasn't been paying attention in history class. Or biology class for that matter.

 

[hydrometeor]

A conversation with this girl I recently got together with:

"What's it say on that ring you're wearing?"

"It's my promise to God that I'm going to try and stay pure."

"Oh. Erm... that's really awesome..."


I do in fact really like her and it's not all about the sechs but talk about disappointing...

The proper action is to court her and eventually marry her, if you really think you two should be together. There is nothing wrong with a girl having moral principles.

 

[CptStern]

yes because females who have had sex have no "moral principles" .. :upstare:

why does HL2.net attract so many morons?

 

[hydrometeor]

yes because females who have had sex have no "moral principles" .. :upstare:


why does HL2.net attract so many morons?

I will ignore your personal attack. However, if you continue, I will stop responding to your posts.

Many different religions value virginity until marriage as an important moral principle. To claim otherwise would be foolish.

I did not claim that girls who fornicate lack morals. Perhaps they simply have different values. In western society, it is now largely acceptable to have sex before marriage. My point is that girls who DO value virginity should not be looked down upon.