Korean anti-Semitism
- Thread starter Nemesis6
- Start date
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Mainly people tend to post one-line responses in place of useful new opinions, and there is a tendency for people to inadequately adress my concerns, necessitating repetition.
Don't worry though, I'll eventually get around to making The Religion Thread To End All Religion Threads(tm).
In the meantime, replying to Nemesis:
So, the reasons why you praise the jewish religion are...
1) it's old.
2) that's really the only point.
Sorry if I seem unimpressed.
Now, here's the interesting part:
We've narrowed it down such that your support is mainly for the Jewish people, as a whole.
That doesn't make much sense either.
I respect all people, in their capacity to exist as capable human beings who can follow secular laws. Evidently, you feel the same.
However, you are specifically praising jewish people for those secular traits that are basically universal.
Not to offend, but being persecuted isn't a skill. It can happen to pretty much anyone, yet it's well into the area where jewish people are being treated as saintly martyrs to the cause of "religious tolerance". Basically, that 'you shouldn't criticize a religion, and especially not the jews, because look what the nazis did.'
What this sentiment ignores is that the nazis were extremely stupid in that they followed prejudice, and that prejudice seeped into their politics and their sciences.
I've refered to it in the past as a political religion, and so it was. Secularism was corrupted by an unfounded belief in the superiority of aryan ubermenchen. There was no fact here. It was a completely unfounded abstract notion presented as fact, and subsequently used as the guiding source of morality. In other words, a religion.
Using the nazis as an example of unchecked religious intolerance ignores the fact that the allies were being rather "religiously intolerant" in so soundly defeating them.
Clearly thus, tolerance is not an acceptable standard of morality, no different a concept than the tired maxim of "ignorance is bliss".
So, what we have is a situation in which this ability to tell the logical right from wrong is being actively stifled when the question of religion is concerned.
Religious tolerance is thus not only harmful, but inherently disrespectful. It gives the jewish people a pat on the head and say "it's all right, no one will ever criticize you again."
It's shamefully paternalistic in that, while it might shield the people from the religion of prejudice, it also deflects all forms of valid constructive criticism, which any system needs in order to grow and progress.
It presents the message that jews are too weak to survive without the protection of the rest of the world, a deck of cards primed for collapse.
I assert, instead, that nothing betrays more respect for someone, and to yourself, than the ability to question them on a level playing field.
Such a level playing field can only be found in secular logical debate, because it is the only objective standard for communication.
Now, as I have established repeatedly, secularism debunks judaism as unsupportable.
You've already shown that judaism's biggest "triumphs" have been solely the parts where vast chunks of their faith have been excised and discarded in place of science and secular law.
Ytse doesn't legitimately follow the Torah because it's "unevolved" compared to humanity's secular progress.
Even Kadayi, who hates me, says that all the most basic jewish laws are insane and/or obsolete.
So, what it comes down to is that respecting the jewish people as equals requires being honest and therefore critical about all aspects of their religion that require criticism.
In this case, I have asserted, without much/any counterevidence presented, that the religion itself is fatally flawed to the point of needing to be discarded.
Even if it is really old, stupidity doesn't have an expiry date.
Don't worry though, I'll eventually get around to making The Religion Thread To End All Religion Threads(tm).
In the meantime, replying to Nemesis:
So, the reasons why you praise the jewish religion are...
1) it's old.
2) that's really the only point.
Sorry if I seem unimpressed.
Now, here's the interesting part:
We've narrowed it down such that your support is mainly for the Jewish people, as a whole.
That doesn't make much sense either.
I respect all people, in their capacity to exist as capable human beings who can follow secular laws. Evidently, you feel the same.
However, you are specifically praising jewish people for those secular traits that are basically universal.
Not to offend, but being persecuted isn't a skill. It can happen to pretty much anyone, yet it's well into the area where jewish people are being treated as saintly martyrs to the cause of "religious tolerance". Basically, that 'you shouldn't criticize a religion, and especially not the jews, because look what the nazis did.'
What this sentiment ignores is that the nazis were extremely stupid in that they followed prejudice, and that prejudice seeped into their politics and their sciences.
I've refered to it in the past as a political religion, and so it was. Secularism was corrupted by an unfounded belief in the superiority of aryan ubermenchen. There was no fact here. It was a completely unfounded abstract notion presented as fact, and subsequently used as the guiding source of morality. In other words, a religion.
Using the nazis as an example of unchecked religious intolerance ignores the fact that the allies were being rather "religiously intolerant" in so soundly defeating them.
Clearly thus, tolerance is not an acceptable standard of morality, no different a concept than the tired maxim of "ignorance is bliss".
So, what we have is a situation in which this ability to tell the logical right from wrong is being actively stifled when the question of religion is concerned.
Religious tolerance is thus not only harmful, but inherently disrespectful. It gives the jewish people a pat on the head and say "it's all right, no one will ever criticize you again."
It's shamefully paternalistic in that, while it might shield the people from the religion of prejudice, it also deflects all forms of valid constructive criticism, which any system needs in order to grow and progress.
It presents the message that jews are too weak to survive without the protection of the rest of the world, a deck of cards primed for collapse.
I assert, instead, that nothing betrays more respect for someone, and to yourself, than the ability to question them on a level playing field.
Such a level playing field can only be found in secular logical debate, because it is the only objective standard for communication.
Now, as I have established repeatedly, secularism debunks judaism as unsupportable.
You've already shown that judaism's biggest "triumphs" have been solely the parts where vast chunks of their faith have been excised and discarded in place of science and secular law.
Ytse doesn't legitimately follow the Torah because it's "unevolved" compared to humanity's secular progress.
Even Kadayi, who hates me, says that all the most basic jewish laws are insane and/or obsolete.
So, what it comes down to is that respecting the jewish people as equals requires being honest and therefore critical about all aspects of their religion that require criticism.
In this case, I have asserted, without much/any counterevidence presented, that the religion itself is fatally flawed to the point of needing to be discarded.
Even if it is really old, stupidity doesn't have an expiry date.
Kadayi
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,034
- Reaction score
- 0
Yet in another thread you proclaim quite the reverse, and state that Christians should be holding to all these Israelite only laws. Seems to me Mecha that you change your tune at the drop of a hat.:dozey:
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
You understand what "at least" means, correct?
You agreed that jews are supposed follow, at least, all the rules in specific contemporary situations (in Israel, etc).
I argued that they must follow all the rules, and that a large chunk of the worst ones are found in Exodus which is a distictly different work from Deuteronomy, with a broader applicability.
I feel I have successfully argued that even Deuteronomy has broader applicability than you've asserted.
These are supported claims that has not yet been contradicted to an adequate degree.
Christians consider themselves to be a natural extension of the Israelite tribe. They must also follow all the rules.
Look, if you're having difficulties, that's no reason to get irate. It's not my fault.
You agreed that jews are supposed follow, at least, all the rules in specific contemporary situations (in Israel, etc).
I argued that they must follow all the rules, and that a large chunk of the worst ones are found in Exodus which is a distictly different work from Deuteronomy, with a broader applicability.
I feel I have successfully argued that even Deuteronomy has broader applicability than you've asserted.
These are supported claims that has not yet been contradicted to an adequate degree.
Christians consider themselves to be a natural extension of the Israelite tribe. They must also follow all the rules.
Look, if you're having difficulties, that's no reason to get irate. It's not my fault.
Sure, almost every group of people gets persecuted once in a while, but there's a difference with the Jews: even if there were some groups that were persecuted more than us, we've survived more persecution than others. Most religions/creeds/whatever after facing as much persecution as we have gone "extinct", intermarried into other nations/religions and disappeared from history. You don't seem to realize that Jews have survived the rise and falls of dozens of empires that they were persecuted by (Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, etc.), and continue to survive no matter what. Remember how I mentioned that we also were one of the only people in Europe to not be touched by the Black Plague? There's something about us that we can handle just about anything. And then, when we're done doing our share of surviving, we make something positive out of it. We go into a country where we think we'll be safe, and we help that country become successful and wealthy.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
If you can handle anything, then surely criticism of your faith is fully acceptable?
I have to say I'm quite miffed at the arrogance of your implied assertion that it's a primarily Jewish burden of making countries wealthy and prosperous. Or am I reading that wrong?
I have to say I'm quite miffed at the arrogance of your implied assertion that it's a primarily Jewish burden of making countries wealthy and prosperous. Or am I reading that wrong?
That's not at all what I meant. I meant that despite our suffering, we turn it into success.
Like Nemesis quoted, Wafa Sultan says - "The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling."
We turn a tragedy into a victory.
Like Nemesis quoted, Wafa Sultan says - "The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling."
We turn a tragedy into a victory.
BabyHeadCrab
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 602
I believe you just owned Christianity as well, admiration of a certain people or people(s) because of persecution is basically what new test. is all about, am I right? Withstanding persecution is admirable imo, in fact it is one of the most powerful aspects of humanity.
Yeah. Along with half the remaining religious doctrine left in the modern world, that's to be expected, is it not? Not even the most iconic and strict Jews are able to follow each and every guideline. Half of your arguements apply to most if not all religions that remain. Surely you have better counter-arguements than naming criticisms of religion as a whole, Mecha.
Mecha, I criticize the Jews as I criticize all others. But the thing is - They don't paint a bullseye on themselves like the Muslims do through their actions and words.
But I don't think the Jewish people need a pat on the back as you put it. They've proven themselves quite capable. And of course you're right that anyone should receive criticism, only problem is, the Jews are singled out like the Muslims. Only problem with that is - The Jews are not the ones known as Jihadi warmongers. Well, the kooks do(see the radical Left), but they don't count.
Now, tell me this - How exactly do the following things qualify as valid criticism? -
1 - They kill Christians and Muslims to make Matza with their blood
2 - They practice Apartheid
3 - They control the world and all the money
4 - The Holocaust is a lie and they use it to execute their own Holocaust in peace
5 - They slaughter people like the Nazis did
6 - They are no better than the Nazis
7 - They are the biggest threat to world peace
8 - They love blood
9 - They don't care about international law
10 - They live on land that doesn't belong to them
11 - They are, in fact, not people. They are the brothers of monkeys and pigs (That one's from the Quran by the way)
12 - Their true objective is to take over the world and kill all Muslims
The above is the shit that you keep hearing, that's always brought against them. I can imagine that they see through the agenda of the U.N., but when normal people bring shit like this against them, can you blame them for being a little cocky?
My point is this - When you keep going after one group no matter what they do, no matter how they try to do it, it shows that you have an agenda.
But I don't think the Jewish people need a pat on the back as you put it. They've proven themselves quite capable. And of course you're right that anyone should receive criticism, only problem is, the Jews are singled out like the Muslims. Only problem with that is - The Jews are not the ones known as Jihadi warmongers. Well, the kooks do(see the radical Left), but they don't count.
Now, tell me this - How exactly do the following things qualify as valid criticism? -
1 - They kill Christians and Muslims to make Matza with their blood
2 - They practice Apartheid
3 - They control the world and all the money
4 - The Holocaust is a lie and they use it to execute their own Holocaust in peace
5 - They slaughter people like the Nazis did
6 - They are no better than the Nazis
7 - They are the biggest threat to world peace
8 - They love blood
9 - They don't care about international law
10 - They live on land that doesn't belong to them
11 - They are, in fact, not people. They are the brothers of monkeys and pigs (That one's from the Quran by the way)
12 - Their true objective is to take over the world and kill all Muslims
The above is the shit that you keep hearing, that's always brought against them. I can imagine that they see through the agenda of the U.N., but when normal people bring shit like this against them, can you blame them for being a little cocky?
My point is this - When you keep going after one group no matter what they do, no matter how they try to do it, it shows that you have an agenda.
When my stomach hurts, I don't complain, I normally eat some pills. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I can warn you ahead of time if you'd like - I criticize the U.N. in my post. So when you come to that, I guess you could replace that with U.S or something. I don't know.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
your statement before editing was better/less awkward
your name alone is synomonous with conservative knee jerk reactionism in my book, so no need
except I use facts
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
sigh ..try not to take everything so literal ...I know what the hell nemesis is ..jeez how could you have misunderstood such an obvious statement?
ooooohkay, again it has nothing to do with your name ..I couldnt care less what your "handle" is
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
"there's a difference with the Jews even if there were some groups that were persecuted more than us, we've survived more persecution than others."
No, your religion has survived. The people were killed or were not.
Of course there were brave acts on the part of individuals and smaller groups to fight for survival and to rescue others, but basic survival is universal to all people.
It is a secular practice.
Like you said, the worst-case alternative was that you abandon your faith.
That's not extinction of the people; that's the extinction of a religion. Nobody dies from marrying into other cultures (unless their friends follow the Torah literally and execute you), but you seem to be treating it that way; you're defining the religion in racial terms.
People dying is bad, because it hurts people and religion falling out of practice is not very bad at all, because it hurts nothing.
This depends, of course, on how valid the religion is. And a religion can be valid. Deism, for example, is very sensible as far as theistic beliefs can go.
However, we've ascertained that Judaism is not a very sensible religion.
"You don't seem to realize that Jews have survived the rise and falls of dozens of empires [...] and continue to survive no matter what."
Like I said, being persecuted isn't a skill.
Jews will survive no matter what because they are equally strong and intelligent as all humanity, so that even hitler could not have hoped to kill every single one of them.
What you are concerned with is not so much the fate of the people as the religion, yet jewish people are fully capable of reproducing without this broken religion.
What your believe has no bearing on your genetics.
"when we're done doing our share of surviving, we make something positive out of it. We go into a country where we think we'll be safe, and we help that country become successful and wealthy."
Once again, your greatest triumphs involve secular victories. Success and wealth are not provided by religion, unless you believe in Lucky Charms or Karma and whatnot (and even then, faith does not suddenly validate an incorrect idea).
Success and wealth are in fact no more unattainable to an atheist than to any given theist (unless they're running for President, zing). They are material things, obtained through material systems.
Like Absinthe said, if you can survive all that, you can survive discarding an unevolved and obsolete religion.
Now, on to babycrab:
"I believe you just owned Christianity as well, admiration of a certain people or people(s) because of persecution is basically what new test. is all about, am I right?"
Oh, quite definitely. Christianity and Judaism have both learned the ideological staying power of massive chunks of pity and guilt.
Martyrdom, however, only works when the actual cause makes sense to begin with.
It doesn't cause an idea make more sense; if I die in the name of "2 + 2 = 87" that doesn't re-write the rules of math.
Martyrdom is nothing more than the publicity campaign for a product that can be, and often is, a stupid broken-down crap-lemon. It's called an emotional appeal.
"Withstanding persecution is admirable imo, in fact it is one of the most powerful aspects of humanity."
That's the exact same argument as when Nemesis was praising the jewish religion for all the jewish scientists.
You're praising the absence of bad, but the absence of bad does not automatically equal good.
It will often mean a lesser evil.
In this case, it's indisputably awful that all those people were killed, but the jewish religion is still a stupid religion.
Like I said, withstanding persecution is great, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race or religion. It's a secular act.
Withstanding persecution does not make you better than anyone else, and so sympathy should not be conflated with admiration, and it should certainly not be conflated with unquestioning approval.
Yet, everywhere you turn, that's exactly what happens:
Did you know Jesus died for your sins??
What a wise philosopher he was!
Pray to him!
"half the remaining religious doctrine left in the modern world [is unevolved and obsolete.] that's to be expected, is it not?"
Saying that half the world's religions aren't obsolete is being extremely, extremely generous.
I've already proven to an adequate degree that the Abrahamic religions that span half the Earth's population are obsolete, and I haven't even begun with the rest - yet have no reason to suspect they are really any different.
"Not even the most iconic and strict Jews are able to follow each and every guideline. Half of your arguements apply to most if not all religions that remain. Surely you have better counter-arguements than naming criticisms of religion as a whole, Mecha."
Uh, my goal is to criticise religion as a whole. It's not my fault that all the world's religions follow measurably similar patterns of extreme stupidity, to which judaism is no exception.
Look, even you agree that the laws of Judaism aren't sensible. No-one can follow them all, and yet they must in order to find favor with god.
The religion is obsolete. We all seem to agree on that basic point. Yet I'm the only one who's actually acknowledging that obsolescence is not a good thing!
People are taking the news that the religion is quite quantifiably worthless with either indifference or outright praise.
Where else do you find such a situation?
If I say:
"My car broke down. I don't think it can be repaired."
Will the universal reply from everyone be, unironically:
"AWESOME! You can use is as a doorstop! Cars are better without their wheels!"
It's utterly absurd.
Thank goodness we don't treat cars as martyrs, so we don't end up with "automobile accident tolerance"
"My minivan's brakes failed for your sins.
What a smart car it was!
What Would Minivan On The Highway With No Brakes Do? (WWMOTHWNBD)
Drive into the nearest tree!"
People, can't you see that you're not making any sense?
No, your religion has survived. The people were killed or were not.
Of course there were brave acts on the part of individuals and smaller groups to fight for survival and to rescue others, but basic survival is universal to all people.
It is a secular practice.
Like you said, the worst-case alternative was that you abandon your faith.
That's not extinction of the people; that's the extinction of a religion. Nobody dies from marrying into other cultures (unless their friends follow the Torah literally and execute you), but you seem to be treating it that way; you're defining the religion in racial terms.
People dying is bad, because it hurts people and religion falling out of practice is not very bad at all, because it hurts nothing.
This depends, of course, on how valid the religion is. And a religion can be valid. Deism, for example, is very sensible as far as theistic beliefs can go.
However, we've ascertained that Judaism is not a very sensible religion.
"You don't seem to realize that Jews have survived the rise and falls of dozens of empires [...] and continue to survive no matter what."
Like I said, being persecuted isn't a skill.
Jews will survive no matter what because they are equally strong and intelligent as all humanity, so that even hitler could not have hoped to kill every single one of them.
What you are concerned with is not so much the fate of the people as the religion, yet jewish people are fully capable of reproducing without this broken religion.
What your believe has no bearing on your genetics.
"when we're done doing our share of surviving, we make something positive out of it. We go into a country where we think we'll be safe, and we help that country become successful and wealthy."
Once again, your greatest triumphs involve secular victories. Success and wealth are not provided by religion, unless you believe in Lucky Charms or Karma and whatnot (and even then, faith does not suddenly validate an incorrect idea).
Success and wealth are in fact no more unattainable to an atheist than to any given theist (unless they're running for President, zing). They are material things, obtained through material systems.
Like Absinthe said, if you can survive all that, you can survive discarding an unevolved and obsolete religion.
Now, on to babycrab:
"I believe you just owned Christianity as well, admiration of a certain people or people(s) because of persecution is basically what new test. is all about, am I right?"
Oh, quite definitely. Christianity and Judaism have both learned the ideological staying power of massive chunks of pity and guilt.
Martyrdom, however, only works when the actual cause makes sense to begin with.
It doesn't cause an idea make more sense; if I die in the name of "2 + 2 = 87" that doesn't re-write the rules of math.
Martyrdom is nothing more than the publicity campaign for a product that can be, and often is, a stupid broken-down crap-lemon. It's called an emotional appeal.
"Withstanding persecution is admirable imo, in fact it is one of the most powerful aspects of humanity."
That's the exact same argument as when Nemesis was praising the jewish religion for all the jewish scientists.
You're praising the absence of bad, but the absence of bad does not automatically equal good.
It will often mean a lesser evil.
In this case, it's indisputably awful that all those people were killed, but the jewish religion is still a stupid religion.
Like I said, withstanding persecution is great, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race or religion. It's a secular act.
Withstanding persecution does not make you better than anyone else, and so sympathy should not be conflated with admiration, and it should certainly not be conflated with unquestioning approval.
Yet, everywhere you turn, that's exactly what happens:
Did you know Jesus died for your sins??
What a wise philosopher he was!
Pray to him!
"half the remaining religious doctrine left in the modern world [is unevolved and obsolete.] that's to be expected, is it not?"
Saying that half the world's religions aren't obsolete is being extremely, extremely generous.
I've already proven to an adequate degree that the Abrahamic religions that span half the Earth's population are obsolete, and I haven't even begun with the rest - yet have no reason to suspect they are really any different.
"Not even the most iconic and strict Jews are able to follow each and every guideline. Half of your arguements apply to most if not all religions that remain. Surely you have better counter-arguements than naming criticisms of religion as a whole, Mecha."
Uh, my goal is to criticise religion as a whole. It's not my fault that all the world's religions follow measurably similar patterns of extreme stupidity, to which judaism is no exception.
Look, even you agree that the laws of Judaism aren't sensible. No-one can follow them all, and yet they must in order to find favor with god.
The religion is obsolete. We all seem to agree on that basic point. Yet I'm the only one who's actually acknowledging that obsolescence is not a good thing!
People are taking the news that the religion is quite quantifiably worthless with either indifference or outright praise.
Where else do you find such a situation?
If I say:
"My car broke down. I don't think it can be repaired."
Will the universal reply from everyone be, unironically:
"AWESOME! You can use is as a doorstop! Cars are better without their wheels!"
It's utterly absurd.
Thank goodness we don't treat cars as martyrs, so we don't end up with "automobile accident tolerance"
"My minivan's brakes failed for your sins.
What a smart car it was!
What Would Minivan On The Highway With No Brakes Do? (WWMOTHWNBD)
Drive into the nearest tree!"
People, can't you see that you're not making any sense?
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
So what? The lesser of two evils is still evil.
You're ignoring the third option that is far superior to both.
And if you were legitimately critical of the jews, you would either agree with what I'm saying or provide valid counterpoints, because I have presented falsifiable ideas supported by evidence that many people agree with and no-one has successfully refuted yet.
Let's face it, the religion is obsolete.
Again, so what? You're not making sensible arguments.
Of course prejudicial antisemitism is bad, but you're just filling the void with prejudical pro-semitism.
It is entirely possible to criticise both the two religions. I do it all the goddamn time.
In choosing sides, you are creating a false dichotomy.
I routinely blame them for being extremely cocky.
I don't understand how you would get the impression that I didn't.
Yet, somehow, I am able to differentiate the two religions. I let both religions rise and fall on their own actions and on their own terms.
And guess what?
They both fall.
Good prejudice doesn't cancel out bad prejudice. It just causes a cumulative increase in stupidity.
So what?!
The problems with islam are myriad, but they do not magically cancel out the problems with judaism!
You aren't being honestly critical in the slightest here.
You just really, really dislike islam, and thus everyone else is seemingly "the good guys".
It's complete and utter nonsense.
Any idiot can be better than the religion of islam. John Wayne Gacy is better than islam.
You need, desperately, to raise your standards; they are inexplicably low.
I mean, just look at what you are saying. I ask you why you give special support to judaism, even though the religion is extremely flawed, and then your only response is to start going on about islam for the umpteenth time.
Forget islam; we are not talking about islam!
We are talking about judaism.
Kadayi
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,034
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not yet met any Christian who claims to be an Israelite (or an extension of), and I'm not aware of any decrees by any Christian Church to support your assertions either. I mean the complete lack of adherence's to the full list of commandments (600+) set down in the Torah (that all Israelites must follow) by any Christian Church I'm aware of does kind of throw the validity of your statement into question. Still I've an open mind enough to give you the opportunity to produce viable documentation to support it, let's see those papal decrees.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Papal decrees? Catholicism is like the most bastardized form of chirstianity. They routinely add new laws onto and in place of the biblical ones. Not long ago, the pope decried the death penalty, in direct contradiction of the entire bible.
Christians don't "claim" to be an extension of Israel, that is fundamentally what they are.
-Jesus was an israelite.
-Jesus taught the laws of the israelites to all his followers, who were largely made up of israelites.
Christians are just jews who follow jesus.
Why do you think the bible has the old testament tacked onto it?
The new testament is an extension of those laws. It was never intended as a replacement.
How many times must I repeat this basic unrefuted concept?
Christians don't "claim" to be an extension of Israel, that is fundamentally what they are.
-Jesus was an israelite.
-Jesus taught the laws of the israelites to all his followers, who were largely made up of israelites.
Christians are just jews who follow jesus.
Why do you think the bible has the old testament tacked onto it?
The new testament is an extension of those laws. It was never intended as a replacement.
How many times must I repeat this basic unrefuted concept?
BabyHeadCrab
The Freeman
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 602
I don't feel like replying at length, yet, even if you despise short posts mecha, but you have to understand not everyone takes religion literally. I think in your religion bashing you forget that it often times is just a personal mechanism for self-betterment, some people have faith and others don't - devoting great amounts of time to debunking the religious right is something anyone can do - hell, hopefully it's something all of us do, but to trash religion all together is just as loony as the people who rub it in your face.
To say Judaism is a stupid religion is something that I'd have to staunchly disagree with, I've seen people use faith and certain Jewish practices to strengthen themselves and have a better sense of being - without preaching to anyone or strictly abiding to any kind of doctrine. Each religion is only what you take it for, in the modern world we have the ability to practice each religion to any degree we wish (in most nations) and picking and choosing ideas to associate with and better yourself is actually a good thing for some people. In your tirade's regarding Judaism in this post you often state that it is only a religion, having nothing to do with ethnicity and race - this is totally wrong, it is both a religion and culture / ethnicity, with practices that have run in families for thousands of years.
In scripture yes, culturally - not even close. You do understand that all sects, even the most conservative of both religions have developed new practices and beliefs over the years, and Jews and Christians have never been more different, in the way they interpret God and actively worship.
To say Judaism is a stupid religion is something that I'd have to staunchly disagree with, I've seen people use faith and certain Jewish practices to strengthen themselves and have a better sense of being - without preaching to anyone or strictly abiding to any kind of doctrine. Each religion is only what you take it for, in the modern world we have the ability to practice each religion to any degree we wish (in most nations) and picking and choosing ideas to associate with and better yourself is actually a good thing for some people. In your tirade's regarding Judaism in this post you often state that it is only a religion, having nothing to do with ethnicity and race - this is totally wrong, it is both a religion and culture / ethnicity, with practices that have run in families for thousands of years.
In scripture yes, culturally - not even close. You do understand that all sects, even the most conservative of both religions have developed new practices and beliefs over the years, and Jews and Christians have never been more different, in the way they interpret God and actively worship.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Perhaps I shouldn't speak for him, but Mecha's overarching point regarding religion expressed in his posts (extending beyond this topic) has been brutally simple.
A) Religion - or at least the three Abrahamic ones - when followed literally needs to entail massive bloodshed, intolerance, and oppression on both a community and individual scale. As such, it has no place in today's civilized societies with our modern ideas concerning morality.
B) When not followed literally, people of faith are picking and choosing which parts they wish to follow and which parts they don't, as well as discerning between literalism and metaphors in their holy texts on purely man-made criteria. And while such "moderation" may be better than true-blue fundamentalism, it is not only intellectually dishonest, but flies in the face of their holy texts' internal logic. They are obviously outdated, inapplicable to today, and therefore obsolete.
At the very least, they only encourage shoddy, fractured methods of thinking. And to what purpose? Anybody honest with themselves knows that if you're throwing out over half of your Koran/Tora/Bible, they're obviously not integral to the health of yourself or society at large. It seems to be largely holding onto tradition for the sake of it. A promotion of tolerance and respect for ideas that should have died out wholly years and years ago.
This isn't even a phenomenon exclusive to theists. Many liberal atheists also buy into the mindset that, as flawed or untenable religion is, it fills an important need for some people, or is harmless.
Interestingly enough, plausible rationales supporting that last sentence are very few and far between. If a religion is broken, why would you hold onto it? Even assuming it is harmless. Why are you trying to cram the circle of faith into the square hole of modernity? What purpose does this possibly serve?
If religious followers have strengthened themselves, it's been in complete disregard of what their faiths are supposed to be. Surely there is a better, secular alternative? Let's just entertain that thought for a second, please.
The obvious response to this is that Christians today are obviously not following Jesus any more, let alone the backlog of laws before Christ beamed down from outer space into a virgin's womb. They're all making it up along as they go, having abandoned their roots. They're all wrong according to the god of Abraham.
Jesus would be rolling in his grave if he saw the state of his cult today.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Feel free to speak for me when your posts are of such quality.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Religion is far more than just a means of attaining happiness. In fact, the bible specifically prohibits hundreds of types of reasonable happiness.
How many gays have been needlessly discriminated against, forced into the closet, killed, because of the Abrahamic religions?
Why do you suppose people ignore well over two thirds of the bible?
The simple answer is that actually following the bible is unhealthy and wrong. Religion isn't the source of happiness. Ignoring religion is.
You basically just said that religion is good because "ignorance is bliss."
That is a terribly wretched, self-serving philosophy.
"Better Living Through Stupidity - Ignore the Cries of Others"
What exactly, is the basis of this conclusion about the validity of my arguments?
The simple fact is that you there is no basis for what you say.
Why is it loony to reject a broken religion the same way you would reject a car with no brakes, or children's book filled with rape scenes?
It's not only sensible, but absoluetly moral to reject things that are so horribly broken.
I sense that I am a human being.
Everyone has that sense unless they are deluded.
How can you have a "better" sense of being?
That's a doublespeak term. It just means "it made them happy".
Anorexia and binge-drinking make people happy too.
The question is of the costs of this happiness. And they are legion.
I really like the "some people" at the end there.
Do you know why it is only good for some people?
Because, thanks to the unfalsifiable nature of religion, people will pick and choose the wrong ideas.
Consistently.
In religious moderation, there is no such thing as "wrong".
God is the only source of morality and god says "pick and choose whatever you want to do."
The bible, torah and koran are absolutely loaded with wrong ideas, making this evil not only possible but probable.
Who actually needs a bible to keep them from killing and stealing?
Psychopaths are who.
A psychopath is anyone who has no concern for humanity and only serves themselves. They will do anything they want if they know they won't get caught.
The concept of God is just a basic panopticon. The mere idea that you're being watched and judged keeps you subdued.
If God is the only thing keeping you in check, then you are a psychopath.
But once you introduce your pick-and choose philosophy into the mix, you empower psychopaths.
They discriminate against gays, they blow themselves up on crowded streets, they set scientific progress back by decades.
etc. etc. etc.
All those things are allowed by these wonderful religions.
Only secular logic says they are wrong.
So, when you're searching for your sense of self, the things that are horribly wrong with religion become options.
This is defective. It kills millions of people. It provides no benefit whatsoever.
And you're praising it.
Why?
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Why on Earth would anyone use a decidedly broken system from 2500 years ago as a source of psychological help?
Religion is far more than just a means of attaining happiness. In fact, the bible specifically prohibits hundreds of types of reasonable happiness.
How many gays have been needlessly discriminated against, forced into the closet, killed, because of the Abrahamic religions?
Why do you suppose people ignore well over two thirds of the bible?
The simple answer is that actually following the bible is unhealthy and wrong. Religion isn't the source of happiness. Ignoring religion is.
You basically just said that religion is good because "ignorance is bliss."
That is a terribly wretched, self-serving philosophy.
"Better Living Through Stupidity - Ignore the Cries of Others"
If what I am saying is "loony," then why can't anyone disprove my falsifiable claims?
What exactly, is the basis of this conclusion about the validity of my arguments?
The simple fact is that you there is no basis for what you say.
Why is it loony to reject a broken religion the same way you would reject a car with no brakes, or children's book filled with rape scenes?
It's not only sensible, but absoluetly moral to reject things that are so horribly broken.
What does that even mean? "Sense of being"?
I sense that I am a human being.
Everyone has that sense unless they are deluded.
How can you have a "better" sense of being?
That's a doublespeak term. It just means "it made them happy".
Anorexia and binge-drinking make people happy too.
The question is of the costs of this happiness. And they are legion.
I really like the "some people" at the end there.
Do you know why it is only good for some people?
Because, thanks to the unfalsifiable nature of religion, people will pick and choose the wrong ideas.
Consistently.
In religious moderation, there is no such thing as "wrong".
God is the only source of morality and god says "pick and choose whatever you want to do."
The bible, torah and koran are absolutely loaded with wrong ideas, making this evil not only possible but probable.
Who actually needs a bible to keep them from killing and stealing?
Psychopaths are who.
A psychopath is anyone who has no concern for humanity and only serves themselves. They will do anything they want if they know they won't get caught.
The concept of God is just a basic panopticon. The mere idea that you're being watched and judged keeps you subdued.
If God is the only thing keeping you in check, then you are a psychopath.
But once you introduce your pick-and choose philosophy into the mix, you empower psychopaths.
They discriminate against gays, they blow themselves up on crowded streets, they set scientific progress back by decades.
etc. etc. etc.
All those things are allowed by these wonderful religions.
Only secular logic says they are wrong.
So, when you're searching for your sense of self, the things that are horribly wrong with religion become options.
This is defective. It kills millions of people. It provides no benefit whatsoever.
And you're praising it.
Why?
Jintor
Didn't Get Temp-Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 14,780
- Reaction score
- 16
Because it provides no benefit to the masses but provides much perceived benefit to the individual. Unless you're the individual being persecuted.
Religion is a control method, for good or for ill.
/EDIT Mostly ill.
Religion is a control method, for good or for ill.
/EDIT Mostly ill.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, that much is pretty blatant. The question is why everybody know this and yet nobody gives a damn.
Like I said, it's the by far the greatest and most pervasive version of Foucault's Panopticon.
"The Panopticon was the ultimate realization of a modern disciplinary institution. It allowed for constant observation characterized by an "unequal gaze"; the constant possibility of observation. Perhaps the most important feature of the panopticon was that it was specifically designed so that the prisoner could never be sure whether s/he was being observed or not. The unequal gaze caused the internalization of disciplinary individuality, and the docile body required of its inmates. This means one is less likely to break rules or laws if they believe they are being watched, even if they are not. Thus, prison, and specifically those which follow the model of the Panopticon, provide the ideal form of modern punishment."
Religion goes one step further than the prison in having a god who is omniscient and therefore omnipresent. It turns all life into such a prison, so long as you are made to believe there might be a god watching.
And it enforces rules that we all agree make no sense whatsoever under just about any condition.
That's why religion isn't a cure to psychological problems and a source of happiness.
All it brings to the table is guilt and shame, unfocused towards any meaningful end.
Like I said, it's the by far the greatest and most pervasive version of Foucault's Panopticon.
"The Panopticon was the ultimate realization of a modern disciplinary institution. It allowed for constant observation characterized by an "unequal gaze"; the constant possibility of observation. Perhaps the most important feature of the panopticon was that it was specifically designed so that the prisoner could never be sure whether s/he was being observed or not. The unequal gaze caused the internalization of disciplinary individuality, and the docile body required of its inmates. This means one is less likely to break rules or laws if they believe they are being watched, even if they are not. Thus, prison, and specifically those which follow the model of the Panopticon, provide the ideal form of modern punishment."
Religion goes one step further than the prison in having a god who is omniscient and therefore omnipresent. It turns all life into such a prison, so long as you are made to believe there might be a god watching.
And it enforces rules that we all agree make no sense whatsoever under just about any condition.
That's why religion isn't a cure to psychological problems and a source of happiness.
All it brings to the table is guilt and shame, unfocused towards any meaningful end.
Jintor
Didn't Get Temp-Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 14,780
- Reaction score
- 16
But it's been part of human society for so long that people find it hard to get rid of the Panopticon. It's become ingrained in the human mind, just as 'fire hurt' and 'being alone bad' is ingrained in the human mind. I am willing to bet that at at the very least one point in your life, Mecha, that you have wished/hoped/thought that there was someone watching over you.
It's part of the way your brain works because society has been doing this for a long time. It's part of the collective consciousness.
It's part of the way your brain works because society has been doing this for a long time. It's part of the collective consciousness.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Perhaps religion served some evolutionary function for survival (although it was more likely a byproduct) back in the day, but there is simply no purpose for it in the post-Enlightenment world.
There is no doubt that religion is heavily ingrained into many societies, but that sounds like an absolving of responsibility. We are an intellectual species with ability to observe, analyze, and evaluate our own actions and thoughts. People simply aren't putting the effort into it.
Anybody who wants to put forth the idea that religion was or still may be beneficial for the human psyche (regardless of whether or not God truly exists) should read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. There's a wonderful parallel drawn later in the book between religion and a moth's tendency to "suicide" via flying into a candle.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm
There is no doubt that religion is heavily ingrained into many societies, but that sounds like an absolving of responsibility. We are an intellectual species with ability to observe, analyze, and evaluate our own actions and thoughts. People simply aren't putting the effort into it.
Anybody who wants to put forth the idea that religion was or still may be beneficial for the human psyche (regardless of whether or not God truly exists) should read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. There's a wonderful parallel drawn later in the book between religion and a moth's tendency to "suicide" via flying into a candle.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
I was once like "wouldn't it be crazy if The Truman Show were real?" and then I thought about it and concluded that no, that notion is stupid.
It's not really "at some point" that faith gets ingrained in the mind. It specifically needs to be done to children who do not know better.
If teaching very young children religion were somehow stopped (as by all rights it should be) then religion would die out in one generation. Guaranteed.
No sane rational adult starts out atheist and later decides that religion is more logical.
When you're this stupid, you need to target children.
kirovman
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 8,461
- Reaction score
- 0
Jintor
Didn't Get Temp-Banned
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2004
- Messages
- 14,780
- Reaction score
- 16
My point was less that at one point it 'worked' and you suddenly had faith. It was more that i believe that religion is not entirely culture-based and at least a little ingrained deeply into the human mindset.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh, I agree entirely on that.
There have been experiments that have deliberately replicated the main effects associated with religious visions, alien abductions and whatnot just by causing electrical misfires in the brain.
Seeing lights sensing a nearby presence and stuff like that.
The sources of religion, as far as sensible explanations are involved are three main ones:
Hallucinations, flawed politics, and human stupidity.
Step one is always that someone has some kind of spaced out dream about a figure surrounded in light or something, giving them a generic message. "Save the environment" and "heal others" are popular with abductees. If more people have the same or similar hallucinations (which is a likely event, as a result of confirmation bias).
Either that, or they are simply "convinced" that the event must be supernatural because the person sounds trustworthy and/or they cannot immediately explain what obstensibly occurred.
In the case of religions like scientology, the person might even be a liar, as long as his claims match the hallucinations of his followers.
So, this person is elevated to the status of a prophet.
Step two is when people start cashing in, which can happen immediately, and often long after the prophet is dead. In either case, the prophet and his disciples gain followers and/or income, becoming a religion.
With these assets on the line, the goal of the religion is then to spread and "save" as many people possible and, more importantly, never be disproven no matter how much evidence arrises.
This involves, usually, inventing crazier claims, weakening the concreteness of earlier claims, and generally downplaying the profound philisophical implications of any religion in favor of trite, simple things like charity work and happiness.
People begin signing on because of the appeal to the authority of "everyone else is doing it" or they want quick-fix solutions to life. Mostly, however, the new recruits are the children of these followers.
New prophets arise out of this scenario, repeating step 1 and often creating new branches of the religion in the process.
That's really all there is to it.
The element of stupidity is just what fuels this crazy/manipulative machine with a near-endless supply of manpower and money.
There have been experiments that have deliberately replicated the main effects associated with religious visions, alien abductions and whatnot just by causing electrical misfires in the brain.
Seeing lights sensing a nearby presence and stuff like that.
The sources of religion, as far as sensible explanations are involved are three main ones:
Hallucinations, flawed politics, and human stupidity.
Step one is always that someone has some kind of spaced out dream about a figure surrounded in light or something, giving them a generic message. "Save the environment" and "heal others" are popular with abductees. If more people have the same or similar hallucinations (which is a likely event, as a result of confirmation bias).
Either that, or they are simply "convinced" that the event must be supernatural because the person sounds trustworthy and/or they cannot immediately explain what obstensibly occurred.
In the case of religions like scientology, the person might even be a liar, as long as his claims match the hallucinations of his followers.
So, this person is elevated to the status of a prophet.
Step two is when people start cashing in, which can happen immediately, and often long after the prophet is dead. In either case, the prophet and his disciples gain followers and/or income, becoming a religion.
With these assets on the line, the goal of the religion is then to spread and "save" as many people possible and, more importantly, never be disproven no matter how much evidence arrises.
This involves, usually, inventing crazier claims, weakening the concreteness of earlier claims, and generally downplaying the profound philisophical implications of any religion in favor of trite, simple things like charity work and happiness.
People begin signing on because of the appeal to the authority of "everyone else is doing it" or they want quick-fix solutions to life. Mostly, however, the new recruits are the children of these followers.
New prophets arise out of this scenario, repeating step 1 and often creating new branches of the religion in the process.
That's really all there is to it.
The element of stupidity is just what fuels this crazy/manipulative machine with a near-endless supply of manpower and money.
ktimekiller
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 4,838
- Reaction score
- 40
I don't get why same arguement raises up each time. Don't take cartoons so seriously, don't take sterotypes so seriously and whatnot. I don't see what the fuss is about. I also dont get mecha's dire hate for religions, if people want to believe in something you think is completely loony, let them be, they aint killing you to believe in it ****.
I think mecha has a religion, a religion to hate other religions to hell, and try to shit on it when it has done no personal harm to him. Even if it did have a personal harm, how harsh was it? Did they knock on your door and ask you to join them in a prayer? to join them in church? Oh the pain mecha. Keep the rude opinion to yer self, everytime religion comes up, you do your best to crap all over the religion. Even if I dont believe in the same religion, i still give them respect for their own beliefs, and i dont see why that is so damned hard for some people.
I think mecha has a religion, a religion to hate other religions to hell, and try to shit on it when it has done no personal harm to him. Even if it did have a personal harm, how harsh was it? Did they knock on your door and ask you to join them in a prayer? to join them in church? Oh the pain mecha. Keep the rude opinion to yer self, everytime religion comes up, you do your best to crap all over the religion. Even if I dont believe in the same religion, i still give them respect for their own beliefs, and i dont see why that is so damned hard for some people.
Absinthe
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,037
- Reaction score
- 30
Re-posting something I said in another topic:
-----------
While I agree that personal religious belief that doesn't hurt anybody is acceptable, relevant examples of such a thing are very few and far between in today's world. This is hampered further by a lack of consensus of what constitutes "hurting others" beyond the obvious.
You may think in private that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marriage because of scripture. While this seems harmless, such a view will express itself and manifest consequences when the time comes to vote. What is misleadingly painted as a benign personal thought turns into a state-sanctioned discrimination against minorities. Similarly, the "let bygones be bygones" attitude towards opinions on stem cell research can and will lead to the death and disfiguration of thousands of people that this promising field of medical science could have helped.
Beliefs are, more often than not, actions waiting to happen. So while you may not be physically clubbing people to death with your Bible, you'd be very shortsighted if you thought the very harboring of these ideas have no impact beyond yourself.
-----------
Comparing criticism to religion as a religion itself is stupid, and anybody who would put an ounce of thought into such a comparison would realize this.
Beliefs are what shape our actions. If I believe I've won the lottery (regardless if I have or not), I will act like I have. If I believe that God hates and wishes to punish homosexuals and other sinners, I will behave accordingly. If I sincerely believe that I will transport myself to a heavenly paradise by blowing up myself along with civilians, then what's stopping me from doing so?
There is no such thing as "safe" religion, and personal insult/injury from them is irrelevant. I've never been blown up by a Muslim, but I still express shock and outrage at the act taking place halfway across the globe. When the majority of the Earth's population subscribes itself to unsubstantiated and irrational thinking, how can it not hurt others?
And yet you and others sit idly by, letting stupidity perpetuate itself endlessly, through children no less. Why? Why are some of you people so willing to turn a blind eye to the multitude of tapestries dedicated to human ignorance? When has such a thing ever been a positive force for mankind?
Pulse
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 0
When some one is on their death bed.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
"I don't get why the same argument is raised each time.
Don't take mistakes so seriously, don't take blatatnt errors so seriously and whatnot.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
I also dont get mecha's dire hate of bad math; if the majority of people want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, let them be. They aren't killing you to follow bad math.*
I think mecha has a math problem: a hatred of other math problems, even when 2 + 2 = 5 has done no personal harm to him. Even if it did have a personal harm, how harsh was it? Did they give a cancer patient too few pills? Did they mess up a space shuttle's design? Oh the pain mecha.
Keep the rude opinion to yourself; everytime 2 + 2 = 5 comes up, you do your best to correct the blatant error. Even if I dont believe in the same blatant error, i still give them respect for their own beliefs, and i dont see why that is so damned hard for some people."
Fixed.
*People die constantly as a result of religion. Constantly.
Ignoring the obvious, Islam, we have christians fighting to give sinners cervical cancer.
"Several conservative religious groups in the U.S. have publicly opposed the concept of making [HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer] vaccination mandatory for pre-adolescent girls, citing fears that vaccination against a sexually transmitted disease might send a subtle message that detracts from an abstinence-based approach to sexual health. Both the Family Research Council and the group Focus on the Family expressed concerns about this."
Yeah, so if you love CANCER then I guess there's nothing wrong with religion.
Speaking of abstinence education: it doesn't work. Abstinence education is entirely faith-based. It promotes ignorance of safety and causes sexually transmitted diseases to spread.
"In a meta-analysis, DiCenso et al. have compared comprehensive sex education programs with abstinence-only programs. Their review of several studies shows that abstinence-only programs not only did not reduce the likelihood of pregnancy of women who participated in the programs, but that 'abstinence-only' actually increased it."
Consequently,
"the Netherlands [which does not use abstinence education] has one of the lowest [teen pregnancy] rates in the world (8.1 per 1000 young women aged 15 to 19 years)." The US's rate is over eleven times higher.
"There is a movement separate from school-based programs to encourage sexual abstinence; scientific research on these programs indicates decreased use of contraceptives among participants who become sexually active."
So if you you love UNPLANNED TEEN PREGNANCIES, PESTILENCE and DEATH then I guess there's nothing wrong with religion.
Do you want me to list millions of other situations that span the whole of history?
I could if that were my job, because you could actually make a career out of listing the attrocities that continue to this day.
Religious conflict can be linked to nearly all cases of war that have occured in the last century and beyond, especially if you (accurately) consider communism and nazism to be political religions.
Now, show me the upside.
Oh, well that justifies giving people cancer.
Don't take mistakes so seriously, don't take blatatnt errors so seriously and whatnot.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
I also dont get mecha's dire hate of bad math; if the majority of people want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, let them be. They aren't killing you to follow bad math.*
I think mecha has a math problem: a hatred of other math problems, even when 2 + 2 = 5 has done no personal harm to him. Even if it did have a personal harm, how harsh was it? Did they give a cancer patient too few pills? Did they mess up a space shuttle's design? Oh the pain mecha.
Keep the rude opinion to yourself; everytime 2 + 2 = 5 comes up, you do your best to correct the blatant error. Even if I dont believe in the same blatant error, i still give them respect for their own beliefs, and i dont see why that is so damned hard for some people."
Fixed.
*People die constantly as a result of religion. Constantly.
Ignoring the obvious, Islam, we have christians fighting to give sinners cervical cancer.
"Several conservative religious groups in the U.S. have publicly opposed the concept of making [HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer] vaccination mandatory for pre-adolescent girls, citing fears that vaccination against a sexually transmitted disease might send a subtle message that detracts from an abstinence-based approach to sexual health. Both the Family Research Council and the group Focus on the Family expressed concerns about this."
Yeah, so if you love CANCER then I guess there's nothing wrong with religion.
Speaking of abstinence education: it doesn't work. Abstinence education is entirely faith-based. It promotes ignorance of safety and causes sexually transmitted diseases to spread.
"In a meta-analysis, DiCenso et al. have compared comprehensive sex education programs with abstinence-only programs. Their review of several studies shows that abstinence-only programs not only did not reduce the likelihood of pregnancy of women who participated in the programs, but that 'abstinence-only' actually increased it."
Consequently,
"the Netherlands [which does not use abstinence education] has one of the lowest [teen pregnancy] rates in the world (8.1 per 1000 young women aged 15 to 19 years)." The US's rate is over eleven times higher.
"There is a movement separate from school-based programs to encourage sexual abstinence; scientific research on these programs indicates decreased use of contraceptives among participants who become sexually active."
So if you you love UNPLANNED TEEN PREGNANCIES, PESTILENCE and DEATH then I guess there's nothing wrong with religion.
Do you want me to list millions of other situations that span the whole of history?
I could if that were my job, because you could actually make a career out of listing the attrocities that continue to this day.
Religious conflict can be linked to nearly all cases of war that have occured in the last century and beyond, especially if you (accurately) consider communism and nazism to be political religions.
Now, show me the upside.
Oh, well that justifies giving people cancer.
Pulse
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 0
Elaborate?
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
It's a proven fact that christianity causes cancer. I noted it above.
American christian groups are blocking the distribution of lifesaving drugs because they might save people who have premarital sex from cancer.
The drug, consequently, is only avaliable in Texas, and not without a lot of controversy ("controversy" now synonymous with "christians hate it for no reason").
Speaking of religion, there is a religious belief in quite a few African cultures that sex with children cures AIDS.
Respect that belief, please, ktime.
American christian groups are blocking the distribution of lifesaving drugs because they might save people who have premarital sex from cancer.
The drug, consequently, is only avaliable in Texas, and not without a lot of controversy ("controversy" now synonymous with "christians hate it for no reason").
Speaking of religion, there is a religious belief in quite a few African cultures that sex with children cures AIDS.
Respect that belief, please, ktime.
ktimekiller
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2003
- Messages
- 4,838
- Reaction score
- 40
you realize your always picking out the bad parts of specific branches? im not going to argue, and ill just stop here.
delusional
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 1
where are there only abstinence only sex-ed classes since i just recently took one and we had abstinence and contraceptive education. Of course , the abstinence guest speakers kept talking about God though.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
What I am doing is describing the inevitable and horrible consequence of vast groups of people devoting their lives to the worship of factual inaccuracies.
That consequence is invariably to spend time, money, human welfare and human lives for no discernable purpose.
And that statement, in effect, is a summary of the greatest source of ill the human species has ever encountered:
"I'm not going to argue. I'll just stop here."
Wiki article on sexual abstinence:
"In spite of these criticisms, abstinence has become the de facto focus of sex education in the United States, so that opponents frequently adopt the line that abstinence education is acceptable only if it is combined with other methods, such as instruction in the use of condoms and easy availability thereof. Most nations of Western Europe use more comprehensive measures, and in sharp contrast to the heated discussion in the US, abstinence is hardly discussed as an educational measure."
Similar threads
