Damn you, religion!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Agreed. They should just be taught the error of their ways :p
 
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?

Racial prejudices and delusions of "inferior races" existed long before Darwin. Eugenics was a concept dating back to Plato and utilized by the Spartans. The Holocaust was a modern revival of medieval antisemitism entrenched in Christian background.

You are talking out of your ass. Hitler as we knew him would have existed regardless if Origin Of Species was published or not. His bigotry was a product of his ideas of racial superiority, not natural selection. Natural selection was only used to disguise his insanity as halfway rational.

Even if he did take large influence from Darwin, so what? I know you're trying to squeeze him into some fucking stupid comparison to religion, but you're falling very short. Darwin did not proclaim to be God. Origin Of Species is not holy scripture.

Darwin made scientific claims about our world.
VS.
The god of Abraham made explicit moral commands and directives.

It can certainly be argued that Darwin's theories can be forced into ideologies both good and bad. This is because his statements are grounded in neutral, fact-based research and have nothing to do with morality. The same cannot be said for many holy texts because they make explicit moral commands, many of which are not open to interpretation or "different utilization" like you fallaciously think they are.
 
I will ignore your personal attack. However, if you continue, I will stop responding to your posts.

please do, however it doesnt change the fact that your post was idiotic

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

many religions believe it's ok to stone to death your children/wife should they talk out of turn ..should we follow every stupid tradition or pick and choose which idiotic ones we want to follow?

I did not claim that girls who fornicate lack morals.

you implied it:

There is nothing wrong with a girl having moral principles

you imply that those who have had sex are without "moral prinicples" ..the implication is clear

Perhaps they simply have different values. In western society, it is now largely acceptable to have sex before marriage.

yes because individuals own their sexuality, not the state and not some idiotic religion that uses celibacy as a control mechanism to keep their sheep (a very fitiing analogy I might add) from straying from the flock
 
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?
Natural selection have nothing to do with wolves and rabbits, or Nordics and Jews, it was only nazi pseudoscience. Human society is no longer affected by natural selection, even Hitlers ideas about eugenics was wrong and unscientific.

NO, OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOT STUPID AND THEY DON'T TEACH LIES ABOUT HISTORY AND EVOLUTION. I WAS ALWAYS GOOD IN HISTORY AND BIOLOGY, BY THE WAY.
 
Racial prejudices and delusions of "inferior races" existed long before Darwin. Eugenics was a concept dating back to Plato and utilized by the Spartans. The Holocaust was a modern revival of medieval antisemitism entrenched in Christian background.

You are talking out of your ass. Hitler as we knew him would have existed regardless if Origin Of Species was published or not. His bigotry was a product of his ideas of racial superiority, not natural selection. Natural selection was only used to disguise his insanity as halfway rational.

Even if he did take large influence from Darwin, so what? I know you're trying to squeeze him into some fucking stupid comparison to religion, but you're falling very short. Darwin did not proclaim to be God. Origin Of Species is not holy scripture.

Darwin made scientific claims about our world.
VS.
The god of Abraham made explicit moral commands and directives.

It can certainly be argued that Darwin's theories can be forced into ideologies both good and bad. This is because his statements are grounded in neutral, fact-based research and have nothing to do with morality. The same cannot be said for many holy texts because they make explicit moral commands, many of which are not open to interpretation or "different utilization" like you fallaciously think they are.

... I thought zombieturtle was arguing that religion was not responsible for genocide and violence, and using the fact that Hitler's views were not influenced by Darwinism as evidence.

Originally posted by Zombieturtle
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?

Then again, that post Absinthe responded to sounded like he was saying that Darwinism did influence Hitler. I hope he hasn't just changed his argument without telling anyone... that would be embaressing.

What the hell though, I just read 165 posts of religious debate, I can hardly think any more... Uriel's avatar basically sums me up right now.

From what I can remember, the majority of this thread was about whether we should respect people's beliefs or not. I think... people were confusing respect for peoples' beliefs with respect for the people themselves. I have next to no respect for most religions. Theists however (non-fundie theists, of course), I do respect, simply because they're people. I have at least four friends who are Christian, and I don't just randomly start arguing with them about their beliefs, even when I feel tempted to. That would just be... counter-productive. Seeing as this whole thread is about religion however, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't critisise religion. Just because we disagree with someone's opinion on something doesn't mean we hate them, nor does it mean that we're being overly dogmatic and picking needless fights with people - in fact IIRC, this all started when someone was arguing with leib10 about whether he was an atheist or an agnostic, then it sort of mutated into "can't we all just get along" arguments...

Can't type anymore. Brain tumours are preventing me from thinking right now. Pray... for... Godron...
 
... I thought zombieturtle was arguing that religion was not responsible for genocide and violence, and using the fact that Hitler's views were not influenced by Darwinism as evidence.



Then again, that post Absinthe responded to sounded like he was saying that Darwinism did influence Hitler. I hope he hasn't just changed his argument without telling anyone... that would be embaressing.

What the hell though, I just read 165 posts of religious debate, I can hardly think any more... Uriel's avatar basically sums me up right now.

From what I can remember, the majority of this thread was about whether we should respect people's beliefs or not. I think... people were confusing respect for peoples' beliefs with respect for the people themselves. I have next to no respect for most religions. Theists however (non-fundie theists, of course), I do respect, simply because they're people. I have at least four friends who are Christian, and I don't just randomly start arguing with them about their beliefs, even when I feel tempted to. That would just be... counter-productive. Seeing as this whole thread is about religion however, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't critisise religion. Just because we disagree with someone's opinion on something doesn't mean we hate them, nor does it mean that we're being overly dogmatic and picking needless fights with people - in fact IIRC, this all started when someone was arguing with leib10 about whether he was an atheist or an agnostic, then it sort of mutated into "can't we all just get along" arguments...

Can't type anymore. Brain tumours are preventing me from thinking right now. Pray... for... Godron...



yes now multiply those tumors 10 fold and you'll start to see how us veterans, who have been through this a million times, feel about this issue ..I've long ago lost any semblance of treating people's religion with even a modicum of respect ..there's just so much inane reasoning/deplorable pov you can take before you blow a gasket
 
why does HL2.net attract so many morons?

I think that there is a lot more intelligent people here than there are at many other forums I go to. So many in fact that I believe the few morons we have around these parts just stick out like a sore thumb. :thumbs:
 
I think that there is a lot more intelligent people here than there are at many other forums I go to. So many in fact that I believe the few morons we have around these parts just stick out like a sore thumb. :thumbs:
Here here, considering the fact that I visit /b/ a lot this place looks like Mensa in comparison.
 
If 1 person changes there mind about the role of religion in there life than its worth the mind numbing debate...
 
If 1 person changes there mind about the role of religion in there life than its worth the mind numbing debate...

Thats what happened to me. I wasnt the hardest of targets, but I did believe in god before I came to hl2.net and other forums where I lurked and read all the debates. So these discussions are not in vain, and do serve a purpose :)
 
Yeah, if you want a site full of morons, just go to Youtube. Some of the comments there boggle the mind... actually, I think it's just a fairer representation of the population in general. I suppose HL2.net is the cream of society. No... the cheese, in fact. The elite cheese.

If 1 person changes there mind about the role of religion in there life than its worth the mind numbing debate...

Agreed.

Thats what happened to me. I wasnt the hardest of targets, but I did believe in god before I came to hl2.net and other forums where I lurked and read all the debates. So these discussions are not in vain, and do serve a purpose

... Kudos to you then; I've heard it takes guts to challenge a belief like that.

Wait a minute... I'M A HEADCRAB!! W00T!!!
 
Thats what happened to me. I wasnt the hardest of targets, but I did believe in god before I came to hl2.net and other forums where I lurked and read all the debates. So these discussions are not in vain, and do serve a purpose :)
Little did you know HL2.net is in fact the front for the ultimate secret CHURCH OF ATHEISM!

MAWHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA. HAHA. HAAAAAAAA.

Naw, we just choose not to believe in fiction :D
 
... I thought zombieturtle was arguing that religion was not responsible for genocide and violence, and using the fact that Hitler's views were not influenced by Darwinism as evidence.

If I understood him correctly, he was drawing a direct comparison between Hitler invoking natural selection and violent extremists invoking holy scripture. His overall argument being that one cannot hold religion itself accountable for evil actions committed in its name.

This assumes that both Darwin's theory and - say - the Bible are similar in nature. They are not. The Bible makes moral claims. Origin Of Species does not. Furthermore, you cannot place a judgment of morality on natural selection any more than you can the theory of gravity. The Bible, on the other hand, makes specific commands and rulings on moral behavior. The moment something starts making classifications on "good" and "evil" behavior, it makes its itself susceptible to moral judgment.

The Bible is unequivocally draconian, prejudiced, violent in many of its messages, and is a very poor source for moral guidance. But again, this is assuming I understood him. I honestly don't know for sure, because he's changed the platform mid-debate at least twice now.

A good amount of people here seem to think that I abhor theists in real life. I don't. I know and like plenty of them, and arguments really only come up when religion starts getting thrown into the mix when discussing politics. It's not like I pounce on hapless Christians at random. It just probably seems that way from posting here, as I view these kinds of topics as scratching posts to a degree
 
Natural selection have nothing to do with wolves and rabbits, or Nordics and Jews, it was only nazi pseudoscience. Human society is no longer affected by natural selection, even Hitlers ideas about eugenics was wrong and unscientific.

NO, OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOT STUPID AND THEY DON'T TEACH LIES ABOUT HISTORY AND EVOLUTION. I WAS ALWAYS GOOD IN HISTORY AND BIOLOGY, BY THE WAY.

Actually humans are constantly affected by natural and sexual selection at all times. It's just that our selection pressures aren't quite as great as they were in the past.
 
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).
.

Once again, shows your lack of theological understanding. You obviously didn't get the big picture. The message there was forgiving your enemy.
I know that sounds foolish in such a selfish society as today, but he had a point. You know, the whole "turn the other cheek" moto.

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

Secular Humanism ideas were derived from theological moral understandings, considering that the theology was there long before secular humanism.
Secular Humanism has morals but without the religion. Not that I have a problem with it, but thats what it 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.

You seem to miss the insanely large percentage of Christians there are in society.
Now while some of them do mindlessly follow the faith, the point is it is a good moral setting for the mindless. It keeps the ants in line.
"Oh, well Jesus says to love thy neighbor.... so I guess I will... okay"

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.

No, he was unique. Otherwise he wouldn't be recognized as being such an important figure by historians and theologians alike.

He was unique in the fact that he was the first well known person to preach the ideas of forgiveness. No faith before his teaching emphasized this idea so much.

Look in the Old Testament, look at the greek gods, look at many faiths before Christianity, they taught punishment, and revenge as a primary answer for wrong doing.
Jesus was one of the first major characters to teach forgiveness.


Don't argue with me about theology, and don't throw stupid non legitimate skepticism sites at me that have no understandings of the abstract Ideas behind his teachings.

I've been forced to study that damn book along with many other religions for about 12 years. I understand the ideas of theology, regardless of the fact that I believe in none of them.
 
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.

Same goes with theology, just because some idiots don't understand the idea doesn't render the entire faith "evil"

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

So some crazy kid plays a video game where you shoot people. Then he goes to school and shoots people.
So should we blaim video games? Of course not, we should be blaiming the parents who didn't know better that their mentally ill 10 yr old shouldn't be playing GTA.

It's not about banning things people, banning things is usually(not always) stupid. The important thing is to be educated.

And to be honest, most people don't know a damn thing about their faith, or other people's faith, or the athiestic ideas. So like a bunch of girlies, you all get in a big cat fight and point fingers. Shut the **** up and accept each other
 
If I understood him correctly, he was drawing a direct comparison between Hitler invoking natural selection and violent extremists invoking holy scripture. His overall argument being that one cannot hold religion itself accountable for evil actions committed in its name.

This assumes that both Darwin's theory and - say - the Bible are similar in nature. They are not. The Bible makes moral claims. Origin Of Species does not. Furthermore, you cannot place a judgment of morality on natural selection any more than you can the theory of gravity. The Bible, on the other hand, makes specific commands and rulings on moral behavior. The moment something starts making classifications on "good" and "evil" behavior, it makes its itself susceptible to moral judgment.

Yup... I suppose the worst you could do is look at evolution from a teleological point of view - i.e. the way things are meant to happen. I suppose that's what Hitler did, arguing that survival of the fittest was the "correct", natural way things should go. This actually troubled me for a while; it seemed to me that all these disturbing aspects of human nature like bullying, violence against rival groups, and everything from those "10 politically incorrect truths about human nature" that Grey Fox posted a while back were actually there to help us. Then I realised that just because something has evolved, just because nature has given us a characteristic as part of the grand scheme of things, doesn't make that characteristic "right". To think so would be to think of nature as a creator who has a purpose for your existence (the furthering of your genes), when really nature just... is. It's just something that happens to be true, really. That fact that we happen to have certain traits has nothing to do with our morals.

The Bible is unequivocally draconian, prejudiced, violent in many of its messages, and is a very poor source for moral guidance.

QFT. If you have the intelligence to pick out the morally decent advice from the plain malicious, then you have the intelligence to know what is right and wrong for yourself. I suppose it's undenyable that it does make people do good things, but surely people could be equally as good if they had just the general moral code instilled in them from a young age, excluding the religion. Besides, I'd prefer people to simply do good things because good things because they need doing and people need helping, rather than because their God tells them to.

But again, this is assuming I understood him. I honestly don't know for sure, because he's changed the platform mid-debate at least twice now.

I knew it! Damnit, I though something was wrong... I just couldn't be bothered to go back and check it.

A good amount of people here seem to think that I abhor theists in real life. I don't. I know and like plenty of them, and arguments really only come up when religion starts getting thrown into the mix when discussing politics. It's not like I pounce on hapless Christians at random. It just probably seems that way from posting here, as I view these kinds of topics as scratching posts to a degree

:p
 
I am sick of beating the dead horse here, so I am done after saying this-


So what if your an Athiest, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Black, Straight, Bi, Agnostic, Hindu, Christian, who cares?
What's going to happen? Forbid someone is different than you?

I don't care what your faith or belief dictates, no matter what, just accept people, as long as they are not truely opressing you, or burning down your village, just accept people for who they are.




If everyone just accepted each other, we wouldn't have racism, sexism, anti-religion hate, anti-athiestic hate.

If Everyone accepted everybody, thats all we would really need. No matter what creed, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

It's really not that hard, just shut the f*ck up and accept people for what they are, and we will have no problems

Fighting hate with hate does nothing








Besides, I'd prefer people to simply do good things because good things because they need doing and people need helping, rather than because their God tells them to.

yes
 
More people die as a result from god than from any other reason, im not accepting shit
 
Ah... it seems zombieturtle has posted twice while I was typing. Damnit... I can't keep doing this at 00:15... but I can...

Secular Humanism ideas were derived from theological moral understandings, considering that the theology was there long before secular humanism.

Originally posted by Google Web Defining Thing
The new emphasis in the Renaissance on human culture, education and reason, sparked by a revival of interest in classical Greek and Roman literature, culture, and language. Human nature and the dignity of man were exalted and emphasis was placed on the present life as a worthy event in itself (as opposed to the medieval emphasis on the present life merely as preparation for a future life).

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance to its ancient Greek roots.

:dozey:

Same goes with theology, just because some idiots don't understand the idea doesn't render the entire faith "evil"

There are plenty of clearly vicious quotes in the OT, it's hard to see how they could have some "abstract" meaning.

So some crazy kid plays a video game where you shoot people. Then he goes to school and shoots people.
So should we blaim video games? Of course not, we should be blaiming the parents who didn't know better that their mentally ill 10 yr old shouldn't be playing GTA.

It's not about banning things people, banning things is usually(not always) stupid. The important thing is to be educated.

Originally posted by Absinthe
This assumes that both Darwin's theory and - say - the Bible are similar in nature. They are not. The Bible makes moral claims. Origin Of Species does not. Furthermore, you cannot place a judgment of morality on natural selection any more than you can the theory of gravity. The Bible, on the other hand, makes specific commands and rulings on moral behavior. The moment something starts making classifications on "good" and "evil" behavior, it makes its itself susceptible to moral judgment.

Originally posted by Absinthe
Darwin made scientific claims about our world.
VS.
The god of Abraham made explicit moral commands and directives.

Like he said, you can't compare religion to Darwinism or GTA, neither make explicit moral directives like religion does. If the two were comparable we would have a lot more people beliving in GTAism and dying as martyrs for their video game and a lot more eugenics. But we don't, because neither of them make such direct attacks on peoples' mindset. Please don't tell me you don't think Islam has anything to do with all the terrorism...

Just discovered now a load of new posts appeared while I was typing. I will stop now. :|
 
Once again, shows your lack of theological understanding. You obviously didn't get the big picture. The message there was forgiving your enemy.
I know that sounds foolish in such a selfish society as today, but he had a point. You know, the whole "turn the other cheek" moto.

Right.

Jesus held and taught biblical teachings that entailed keeping slaves, killing heretics, and inflicting punishment upon those who deny God. But I'm missing the "big picture". Tell me, zombie. How are these things part of the bigger picture?

What can we learn from this? That the Bible is self-contradictory. Besides, "turning the other cheek" as a rule is pacifism to the point being immoral.

Secular Humanism ideas were derived from theological moral understandings, considering that the theology was there long before secular humanism.
Secular Humanism has morals but without the religion. Not that I have a problem with it, but thats what it is.

...What the shit?

Secular humanism is just a modern term for something that has existed ever since humans learned that their actions can cause suffering to others. Human compassion exists on its own without God. Faith has no dominion over that, and it never has. If we derived our ethical impulses from biblical scripture (at least in Western society), we would still be dashing our childrens' brains out with rocks when they get insolent.

We don't.

You're wrong.

You seem to miss the insanely large percentage of Christians there are in society.
Now while some of them do mindlessly follow the faith, the point is it is a good moral setting for the mindless. It keeps the ants in line.
"Oh, well Jesus says to love thy neighbor.... so I guess I will... okay"

It's this kind of inane reasoning that lets people kill homosexuals without a twinge of guilt too. And why should they feel guilty? "God says homosexuals are an abomination, so he sure must be glad when I send one to Hell!".

Religion is not a good source of morality for the mindless. It's a warped surrogate that is capable of instilling just as much stupidity and ignorance (particularly the hateful kind) as it is any capacity for good. People who need Jesus in order to keep them from murdering their neighbors are sociopaths.

No, he was unique. Otherwise he wouldn't be recognized as being such an important figure by historians and theologians alike.

This is because Christianity has one hell of a PR department and has had the luxurious history of conquering and converting large parts of the world in order to spread its ideology.

No doubt Jesus was important as a historical figure. But his teachings themselves were not unique in any way.

Look in the Old Testament, look at the greek gods, look at many faiths before Christianity, they taught punishment, and revenge as a primary answer for wrong doing.
Jesus was one of the first major characters to teach forgiveness.

Look up Jainism if you want good moral instruction on pacifism, love, and forgiveness.

Don't argue with me about theology, and don't throw stupid non legitimate skepticism sites at me that have no understandings of the abstract Ideas behind his teachings.

Oh, now it's a book of abstract ideas? Here I was thinking it was a book of moral instruction with some pretty clear-cut directives, despite their contradictions.

Tell me, what is the real meaning behind all this symbolism? What is the true moral instruction of the Bible? What do the countless examples of violence and retribution symbolize?

What is so abstract about the Bible, really?
 
Besides, "turning the other cheek" as a rule is pacifism to the point being immoral.

Great post, as usual Ab.

I'd like to point out a theory that "turning the other cheek" is grossly misinterpreted, and actually an act of defiance. You see, slaves were expected to turn their left cheeks forward for punishment (slapping) by their predominately right handed roman opressors. This just shows how misguided and pointless following a misunderstood 2000 year old cult is...
 
ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO MAINTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON HL2.NET

YOUR BELIEFS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND SUCCINCTLY ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WILL BE TREATED AS HOSTILE ACTIVITY. THERE WILL BE NO TOLERATION OF RELIGION ON THIS WEBSITE, REGARDLESS THE LEVEL OF WORSHIP

DO NOT IMPRESS YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THIS WEBSITE OR YOU WILL BE HUNTED DOWN AND SHOT

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

-concerned member of hl2.net


Hopefully you can see both the sarcasm and irony of this statement designed to take the piss from a fundamentalist's perspective. It doesn't really hold true, as most on this website... (apart from some) ...are tolerant of others concerning religion.

Metaphorically speaking, religion isn't a 2D thing. Instead, it holds 3 Dimensions, much like a political spectrograph. On some levels you have
- those who believe and can worship quietly and privately (without discerning their belief on others ie: me);
-and on other levels you have those that believe that their religion should be the unanimous and ultimate religion that should be forced/imposed on all worldwide (ie: a ****ing fundey)

I'm going to try to stay out of this debate, so any flaming and blah blah blah should be sent as a pm. Those that hold religion may choose to worship on any level they choose, and that is probably where the fault lays, in the demographic and individual traits and characteristics and of human, not the religion or the basis of the religion itself. Just take note that the world is a very diverse place and tolerance is the only way we can become better as people.
 
Zombie, the problem with the kind of universal acceptance you advocate is is that it validates and immunizes every kind of inane belief in existence.

Why should I accept somebody's belief that three day old embryos have souls? Why should I treat this with respect when people vote on the basis of such an idea and consequently impede the most promising area of life-saving medical science we've discovered? Why should I respect a belief that contributes directly to the enduring misery and illness of countless that could be benefited from such medical science?

I shouldn't. Nor should you. The bottom line is that it does matter what millions of people believe, especially when those beliefs have so much influence and affect others so negatively. And we should fight tooth and nail to demolish those beliefs whenever somebody starts pretending they are valid.
 
I am just going to post this again, because it seems to be the only post of mine people ignore, huh, wonder why-

I am sick of beating the dead horse here, so I am done after saying this-


So what if your an Athiest, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Black, Straight, Bi, Agnostic, Hindu, Christian, who cares?
What's going to happen? Forbid someone is different than you?

I don't care what your faith or belief dictates, no matter what, just accept people, as long as they are not truely opressing you, or burning down your village, just accept people for who they are.




If everyone just accepted each other, we wouldn't have racism, sexism, anti-religion hate, anti-athiestic hate.

If Everyone accepted everybody, thats all we would really need. No matter what creed, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

It's really not that hard, just shut the f*ck up and accept people for what they are, and we will have no problems

Fighting hate with hate does nothing
 
Problem is, most people don't do that.

I bet if there was a study done, it would show the more religious as less tolerant, statistically.
 
Zombie, the problem with the kind of universal acceptance you advocate is is that it validates and immunizes every kind of inane belief in existence...

...And we should fight tooth and nail to demolish those beliefs whenever somebody starts pretending they are valid.



Speaking truthfully. You would make a ****ing excellent benevolent dictator, but that aint a good thing

Kudos, though, for standing up for what you believe in
 
I am just going to post this again, because it seems to be the only post of mine people ignore, huh, wonder why-

Your post addresses none of what I asked.

If I say that irrational beliefs are impeding research into life-saving medical science and your response is "So what?", then it appears we've reached our end. But at the same time, that says a lot about how deadly apathy can be.

Speaking truthfully. You would make a ****ing excellent benevolent dictator, but that aint a good thing

Kudos, though, for standing up for what you believe in

Well, thanks... I think. To be honest, I'm confused by this post.

Benevolent dictatorships are still dictatorships, and I have no fondness for them. I must repeat, I am against the idea of outlawing religion and religious beliefs, despite how inane I think they are. I don't subscribe at all to the idea of thoughtcrime. And in terms of practicality, not only do I think such an approach would inevitably backfire, but it's well easy for it to turn into a slippery slope.

I have only advocated that people stop bending over backwards to avoid offending the faithful. I have asked that honest criticism be a staple of intellectual discourse. That the religious perspective be discredited every time it gives input on serious issues, and that secularists and liberals essentially stop being pansies when it comes to this.

It's a common trend for liberals in the western world to give credence to religious opinion on grounds of kindness or respect, even if they themselves are atheists. They may even sincerely believe this. While the intent is arguably admirable, it is severely misguided and increasingly untenable in today's world. Many advocates of stem cell research as well have given into the preposterous notion that faith's unqualified, antiquated input should be taken into serious consideration. It's time we stopped coddling these ridiculous fantasies.
 
I am sick of beating the dead horse here, so I am done after saying this-


So what if your an Athiest, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Black, Straight, Bi, Agnostic, Hindu, Christian, who cares?
What's going to happen? Forbid someone is different than you?

I don't care what your faith or belief dictates, no matter what, just accept people, as long as they are not truely opressing you, or burning down your village, just accept people for who they are.

If everyone just accepted each other, we wouldn't have racism, sexism, anti-religion hate, anti-athiestic hate.

If Everyone accepted everybody, thats all we would really need. No matter what creed, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

It's really not that hard, just shut the f*ck up and accept people for what they are, and we will have no problems

Fighting hate with hate does nothing
Hi, um...

RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS FIRST.


Also, I love how people always use "imaginary friend" to describe people's fanatical belief of their god. I can't help but picture two kids in a playground with their mums, and one kid says to the other, "My imaginary friend Jimmy says I have to kill you."

Does the mum turn the other cheek? Lol.
 
I am sick of beating the dead horse here, so I am done after saying this-

Nah, I think you're really just too lazy and stupid to keep to a single argument, and then defend it with logic.

I didn't really follow the entire debate here, but I do know that your post has abso****inglutely nothing to do with any of the argument at hand...
 
Benevolent dictatorships are still dictatorships, and I have no fondness for them. I must repeat, I am against the idea of outlawing religion and religious beliefs, despite how inane I think they are. I don't subscribe at all to the idea of thoughtcrime. And in terms of practicality, not only do I think such an approach would inevitably backfire, but it's well easy for it to turn into a slippery slope.

I have only advocated that people stop bending over backwards to avoid offending the faithful. I have asked that honest criticism be a staple of intellectual discourse. That the religious perspective be discredited every time it gives input on serious issues, and that secularists and liberals essentially stop being pansies when it comes to this.

It's a common trend for liberals in the western world to give credence to religious opinion on grounds of kindness or respect, even if they themselves are atheists. They may even sincerely believe this. While the intent is arguably admirable, it is severely misguided and increasingly untenable in today's world. Many advocates of stem cell research as well have given into the preposterous notion that faith's unqualified, antiquated input should be taken into serious consideration. It's time we stopped coddling these ridiculous fantasies.

Fookin' /thread.
 
I am sick of beating the dead horse here, so I am done after saying this-


So what if your an Athiest, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Black, Straight, Bi, Agnostic, Hindu, Christian, who cares?
What's going to happen? Forbid someone is different than you?

I don't care what your faith or belief dictates, no matter what, just accept people, as long as they are not truely opressing you, or burning down your village, just accept people for who they are.




If everyone just accepted each other, we wouldn't have racism, sexism, anti-religion hate, anti-athiestic hate.

If Everyone accepted everybody, thats all we would really need. No matter what creed, race, gender, or sexual orientation.

It's really not that hard, just shut the f*ck up and accept people for what they are, and we will have no problems

Fighting hate with hate does nothing










yes

But when you accept everyone, you also happen to accept nutjobs with really harmful beliefs. I don't give a shit if you think you have the right to believe in nonsense, if you can't take being laughed at for silly beliefs, you shouldn't hold such silly beliefs.

I'm all for love and acceptance, but when we're talking about dangerous, harmful beliefs, they simply cannot be tolerated. The most effective weapons against fundamentalism are ridicule and education, and so help me I will do everything in my power to ridicule the bind, idiotic beliefs held by people and educate them with the truth.

I will not accept someone who desires to blow up a building. Nor will I accept someone who desires to circumvent scientific progress with nonsense, nor will I accept someone who desires to teach children lies, nor someone who kills for a fairytale, nor someone who gives false hope to the sick, takes money from the poor, or terrorizes children with thoughts of eternal damnation. No, I won't accept these lunatics, no matter how nice it might be to do so. I won't accept an institution which willingly hijacks the minds of countless generations, which willingly corrupts every facet of human society. I will ridicule, I will argue, and I will educate until this blight is annihilated from the Earth.
 
Basically, don't bother people about their religion and beliefs UNLESS their beliefs are hurting other people or seriously impede the betterment of man.
 
Basically, don't bother people about their religion and beliefs UNLESS their beliefs are hurting other people or seriously impede the betterment of man.
Which, oddly enough, happens all the time.
 
like when someone say "oh my god!" and a Atheist covers his ears screaming "must not listen to the blasphemy!"?
 
I don't mind if a girl wants to wait(really I do, I enjoy cuddling and spooning) but when she is doing that because of religion, it pisses me off and makes me want to smash her head in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top