oh...man...i'd give 400$ to kick this guy in the nuts

[Jintor]

When Sulkdodds gets bored.

 

[CyberPitz]

Ack, so many multi-quotes in a post...

 

[Azner]

If nothing else, at least retain a healthy dose of skepticism throughout your life. Don't take anything as fact unless someone has evidence towards it. And then, retain some skepticism towards that evidence. It's a good way to go about things.

I have nothing to lose being Christian. Infact it does seem great to be. Well maybe you would think otherwise but then I guess if it is still a big lie in the end, i havent lost anything.(That is until you reply me with everything i missed)

 

[Stigmata]

Nothing to lose except your mental integrity. To be Christian requires you to abandon logic in order to take up the necessary faith

I have a really educational image I could post here, it might help argue my point.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Only abandoning logic in respect to the existence of God, not necessarily anything else.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I have nothing to lose being Christian. Infact it does seem great to be. Well maybe you would think otherwise but then I guess if it is still a big lie in the end, i havent lost anything.(That is until you reply me with everything i missed)

Really? If christianity isn't true, and islam is, your ****ed. Your ****ed. And in a world with hundreds of religions, the chances of yours being true is no greater than shamans living in south america.

 

[Stigmata]

Also:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

 

[Kadayi]

I can see where you're coming from, but there is a problem here. Catcher in the Rye does not declare itself to be The Truth About The Universe and The Rules For Living Your Life, nor has it ever been adopted and defended as a central sacred text by a massive organised pseudo-governmental entity.

The thing is Sulks whose to say it might not be in 50 years though? Caulfield rallies against the 'phonies' of this world in CitR, let's not forget. If we are to apply a rule that a book or books are dangerous, it has to be a universal rule surely? Consider the example of Nietzsche, some of his ideas inspired Hitler to eradicate millions of people, but you can still pick his books up in your local Waterstones or Borders. Shouldn't he be banned in case his works inspire another Holocaust down the road?

I warm to this attitude and it's wise to take it in everyday life. But the issue arises of whether these ordinary, moderate Christians are not helping to "push their shit" simply by believing in and legitimizing a creed that is at bottom problematic in its ideal of 'faith'. No doubt about it that religion has shaped our society and informed our thinking in very profound ways, and will be difficult to escape (if that were even desirable). I am just not sure anybody should aspire to faith.

I'm not prescribing people do so Sulks, but I firmly believe in peoples right to complete freedom in their beliefs over any form of suppression (no matter how daft their belief system maybe), even if it conflicts with my own stance on things, to do other wise would be duplicitous. It's only when people aggressively foist their ideas/beliefs upon others (both individuals & institutions) I see a problem, but that is a constant problem and not just something unique to religion (political groups/self interest groups are equally as guilty and generally more successful). When do you choose tyranny over freedom? Save when it suits your own needs over others? That's just not a position I can subscribe to.

Despite being a long standing atheist, the problem I see with the arguments of many other atheists seems to be that they all too easily fall into the trap of blindly and blithely assuming everything would be utterly fantastic without religion, as if it's the complete Pandora's box to all the problems in the world at present. Although I can appreciate the perspective, and agree to an extent (it would be a lot better), equally I don't subscribe to the notion that we are all inherently born of sweetness, light and universal love (as is so often claimed). In my experience and personal observations by and large, and for better or worse, we as people are the products of our upbringing, and that for a lot of people around the world religion often does provide them with a moral foundation upon which to build their lives. To remove religion wholesale, would create a moral void for many, and I just don't think it's remotely enough to suggest that secular legislation of itself keeps people in check. The sheer numbers of people who continually find themselves in prison for breaching these very laws seems to support that conclusion. By and large people in prison tend to find god (or whatever) after their incarcerated, not beforehand which seems to point to some form of moral/social deficiency, and a serious dent in the 'we are naturally born genetically good' arguments that so often come up. If we are born genetically kind and generous, how is that the world is full of homeless people? Wouldn't we all naturally feel the urge to spare them their misfortune?

My position would be (and I believe I hinted at it briefly in an earlier post) that the most logical route to undertake, to ultimately usurp religion is to actually start teaching ethics in schools at an early age as a mandatory interactive subject, thus ensuring that all future children have some moral guidance, and share a common framework of understanding within a secular environment, outside of whatever their parents of priests may have taught them (or not, as the case increasingly is). A couple of generations down the line of that, and perhaps then it becomes acceptable to start reviewing the relevance of organized religion wholesale, assuming it wouldn't have already curled up and died by then. A revolution is not required, merely an evolution. The only niggling problem to this, is who watches the watchmen, when it comes to what's taught and what's not?

Of course, in practicality it is only ever acceptable for legislation to go so far on this matter - that is, for it to go as far as "freedom of/from religion".

Well this is the reality we face. The confrontational heads on style of The Dawkins or Harris is never going to succeed in doing more than shipping books, making both men exceedingly rich and convincing no one as to the error of their ways. If people already subscribe to the fantastical on faith alone, nitpicnickingly pointing out the illogical (The Dawkins), or haranguing them (misguidedly it must be added) for not following every instruction laid down within (Harris) is never going to win over hearts and minds, save those already in agreement with the authors opinions. The better approach is to provide an alternative moral framework but one devoid of the redundancy and dogma traditional religious texts offer up. Harris does actually kind of hint at this in The end of faith, but doesn't quite manage to make for a convincing argument.

contentions and arguments...oh please, you only gave examples how religion used to work in the past.

Hmm.....

I'd say a more fair and reasonable view is required when assessing anything within it. (1) If you start throwing out the baby with the bath water at every single point of contention where do you stop? A lot of what Newton, Darwin and Einstein have proposed has been usurped by later scientists, by the rationale that X was wrong and we'd have to throw out Y as well, you'd have to torch much of what they came up with as well, where does it end? The works of men whether science, literature, religion are always slaves to fallibility. Why get so hung up on it? (2) Because one line says 'to the 4 corners of the earth' should we also throw away the idea of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you?, Regardless of whether you hold to a God or not, that's still a pretty relevant and sensible piece of life advice. (3) How different 'You don't shit in your own back yard'?

(4) If some people gain succour and comfort from it in their lives what?s the real harm? (It?s no skin off my nose if people want to go to church on a Sunday, or believe God made the dinosaurs) The only dangerous people are fanatics, but unfortunately you just can't legislate for crazy people. As I highlighted in the earlier post in response to DEATH eVADER, I doubt Friedrich Nietzsche ever thought concentration camps would rise up out of his words, and I doubt Mohammad envisioned 747s flying into the twin towers. (5) Flip the coin to video games and killing sprees, if a couple of kids play GTA and then decide to shoot up their school, is it remotely fair to hold the game solely responsible?

In case you missed the response to DEATH eVADER:-

Agreed. The problem is people continually focus on the books as the source, rather than the people interpreting them. Consider old Friedrich Nietzsche, respected Philosopher but the poor bastard will forever be associated with the Nazis, because of how Hitler and his cronies interpreted his works way after his death.

Now secular legislation is all well and good, but generally it's not much of a deterrent Vs constant social conditioning. (6) Consider the issue of Murder vs Speeding. Both are illegal, but pretty much everyone speeds given the opportunity, where as even if they could get away with it very few people would murder someone else, principally because they would fear the guilt that would haunt them as a consequence. What is guilt but an emotional response born of the endless instruction that's been drummed into you over the years telling you that to murder is a bad thing, whether that be from your parents (if they are responsible), your teachers or your priest? Fact of the matter is, more people are probably killed as a result of Car accidents than homicides in a year in Europe, but that doesn't really dissuade people from speeding. No ones feeling guilty for speeding whilst they are doing it, though they probably feel guilty for speeding after they kill someone.

When J. D. Salinger wrote Catcher in the Rye do you think he ever thought it would inspire Mark Chapman to shoot John Lennon? (7) Should we ban CitR in case it inspires others, and have it taken off school reading lists? By your rationale we'd have to, but what's truly to blame the book or the person? (8) Does a gun alone kill a man, or is it the intent of the man who pulls the trigger to kill the other? (9)If you take away the gun, does that remove the intent? Here in the UK we have very strict gun laws, however the dramatic reduction in gun crime has been followed by an equally dramatic rise in knife related homicides/assaults. (10) Should we blame the existence of knifes now for all this killing?

Blindness to question marks perhaps?

Anyway given you've skipped them twice now (originally, and then on your 'review'). I'm not expecting you to come up with any viable or reasoned responses, and frankly I much prefer engaging with Sulks as he seems to actually be a bit more prepared to engage in an actual dialog, and one that might lead somewhere constructive.

If nothing else all this talk is doing wonders for my folding:-

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=96276

 

[jverne]

The thing is Sulks whose to say it might not be in 50 years though? Caulfield rallies against the 'phonies' of this world in CitR, let's not forget. If we are to apply a rule that a book or books are dangerous, it has to be a universal rule surely? Consider the example of Nietzsche, some of his ideas inspired Hitler to eradicate millions of people, but you can still pick his books up in your local Waterstones or Borders. Shouldn't he be banned in case his works inspire another Holocaust down the road?



I'm not prescribing people do so Sulks, but I firmly believe in peoples right to complete freedom in their beliefs over any form of suppression (no matter how daft their belief system maybe), even if it conflicts with my own stance on things, to do other wise would be duplicitous. It's only when people aggressively foist their ideas/beliefs upon others (both individuals & institutions) I see a problem, but that is a constant problem and not just something unique to religion (political groups/self interest groups are equally as guilty and generally more successful). When do you choose tyranny over freedom? Save when it suits your own needs over others? That's just not a position I can subscribe to.

Despite being a long standing atheist, the problem I see with the arguments of many other atheists seems to be that they all too easily fall into the trap of blindly and blithely assuming everything would be utterly fantastic without religion, as if it's the complete Pandora's box to all the problems in the world at present. Although I can appreciate the perspective, and agree to an extent (it would be a lot better), equally I don't subscribe to the notion that we are all inherently born of sweetness, light and universal love (as is so often claimed). In my experience and personal observations by and large, and for better or worse, we as people are the products of our upbringing, and that for a lot of people around the world religion often does provide them with a moral foundation upon which to build their lives. To remove religion wholesale, would create a moral void for many, and I just don't think it's remotely enough to suggest that secular legislation of itself keeps people in check. The sheer numbers of people who continually find themselves in prison for breaching these very laws seems to support that conclusion. By and large people in prison tend to find god (or whatever) after their incarcerated, not beforehand which seems to point to some form of moral/social deficiency, and a serious dent in the 'we are naturally born genetically good' arguments that so often come up. If we are born genetically kind and generous, how is that the world is full of homeless people? Wouldn't we all naturally feel the urge to spare them their misfortune?

My position would be (and I believe I hinted at it briefly in an earlier post) that the most logical route to undertake, to ultimately usurp religion is to actually start teaching ethics in schools at an early age as a mandatory interactive subject, thus ensuring that all future children have some moral guidance, and share a common framework of understanding within a secular environment, outside of whatever their parents of priests may have taught them (or not, as the case increasingly is). A couple of generations down the line of that, and perhaps then it becomes acceptable to start reviewing the relevance of organized religion wholesale, assuming it wouldn't have already curled up and died by then. A revolution is not required, merely an evolution. The only niggling problem to this, is who watches the watchmen, when it comes to what's taught and what's not?



Well this is the reality we face. The confrontational heads on style of The Dawkins or Harris is never going to succeed in doing more than shipping books, making both men exceedingly rich and convincing no one as to the error of their ways. If people already subscribe to the fantastical on faith alone, nitpicnickingly pointing out the illogical (The Dawkins), or haranguing them (misguidedly it must be added) for not following every instruction laid down within (Harris) is never going to win over hearts and minds, save those already in agreement with the authors opinions. The better approach is to provide an alternative moral framework but one devoid of the redundancy and dogma traditional religious texts offer up. Harris does actually kind of hint at this in The end of faith, but doesn't quite manage to make for a convincing argument.



Hmm.....






In case you missed the response to DEATH eVADER:-







Blindness to question marks perhaps?

Anyway given you've skipped them twice now (originally, and then on your 'review'). I'm not expecting you to come up with any viable or reasoned responses, and frankly I much prefer engaging with Sulks as he seems to actually be a bit more prepared to engage in an actual dialog, and one that might lead somewhere constructive.

If nothing else all this talk is doing wonders for my folding:-

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=96276

god damn you're thick.

first you opened points i never intended to discuss.

1.,2.,3. again...who said that i would throw everything out. it doesn't even matter in this case.
let me say it this way...why would i wanna throw out good rational and scientific ideas Newton made? and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you" hasn't originated from religion either...why the hell do you equate that so much?
and again...you're cherry picking...you only chose to use the good parts of what religion teaches and ignore the bad...it doesn't work that way

4.i told you already three or more times...learn about moderate religion. ffs don't be such a dumbass.
i'm not saying we should censor ideas, but dumb ideas shouldn't be perpetuated. Friedrichs idea was obviously stupid, like the idea of religion. is it any clearer now?

6. yes because religion does a very good job in restraining people to do bad stuff. yeah right...i don't need to post proof right? i think it's pretty self obvious

7.,8.,9.,10. read number 4. and i'll like to add this quote..."guns don't kill people but they sure help". religion doesn't kill/harm/annoy people but it sure gives them a moral initiative and excuse.
well we could compare alot of things do..but the problem with religion is that you can blame an invisible man up there and feel redeemed.


satisfied?

 

[Azner]

Nothing to lose except your mental integrity. To be Christian requires you to abandon logic in order to take up the necessary faith

I have a really educational image I could post here, it might help argue my point.

Elaborate. Are you talking about evolution and creationism. Yeah yeah i believe in evolution and all.

Really? If christianity isn't true, and islam is, your ****ed. Your ****ed. And in a world with hundreds of religions, the chances of yours being true is no greater than shamans living in south america.

BUT SO ARE YOU HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Shit.