1robin
Christian/Baptist
In this general context those that wrote potentially the most profound and absolute laws possible were also completely impoverished. The apostles gave up the Gold yet they wrote the greatest laws ever recorded.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists
- Thread starter JustWondering
- Start date
1robin
Christian/Baptist
First, you can't dismiss whatever patterns you dislike and keep the ones you wish to by claiming the brain is set up to find patterns. It is set up to find many things, and trillions of the things it finds actually exist. Second lets actually look at some patterns. Please look into the teleological argument for the Christian God and tell me why the patterns the argument relies upon do not exist.
Who is denying your right to use words, challenging your freedom, or rebuking your ability to "fight" for your world view?
"Don't kill people" and "Don't take other people's ****" are pretty universal laws.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Hello Nietzsche. Why do you never use any Nietzscheisms in your posts? I find much of what he says very profound and informative, even if ultimately contradictory and incorrect. Anyway, on to your post.
1. You typed a few over generalized ethical statements. I have no idea what I am supposed to do with them, but I will try anyway.
2. If do not take other peoples stuff is supposed to be an example of a person with the gold making the rules then it falls flat. Rich people do not get rich by hoping they are prevented from getting the stuff others have.
3. Do not kill people is one of the most immoral commands I have ever heard off. If we had followed it we would all be speaking Japanese or German. Thank goodness God is not that irrational. He said instead, for us to never murder which is very different.
4. Your two rules are not original, God gave commands long before you existed that are similar to yours but he was far more detailed, just, exhaustive, and precise in his version.
JustWondering
Jerk
I believe that the more informed and educated a population is the less likely they are going to be swayed or convinced that mythological stories are rooted in reality. I've personally seen it in 20 year olds, I'm not afraid to discuss religion and politics with others in RL. Many 20 somethings I've discussed this with have in their own words called Christianity BS, and even shown open disdain for Christianity. Most that identify as Christians admitted to me that they don't know much about their own religion and/or are Christian primarily because they were raised to be Christian. Roughly a number of twenty somethings equal to the Christians identified as Wicken (don't know if that's the correct spelling), Buddhist, or other. The latter investigated their current religion on their own before joining it. Of course, this is my experience where I live, but I do not think this is an isolated phenomenon, thankfully.
America’s Changing Religious Landscape
We all live in the same reality. Whatever views we hold do not change reality. Believing in Leprechauns will not make Leprechauns real for example.
It does not make more sense, nor is it supported by any evidence of any kind whatsoever. It only provides false hope and comfort.
Politicians in American pass or attempt to pass laws all the time based solely on religious reasons because they themselves are religious or they are trying to get votes from those that are religious. This is not isolated to America, there are countries that execute people for practicing sorcery or for being gay. I don't see how this concept is so difficult for you to grasp?
I did not say all religion is bad. I am against religions that hinder critical thinking and encourage irrational behavior. There are religions that encourage not only irrational behavior but dangerous behavior, that is a fact. Also, wouldn't it be a good thing if people are more inclined to think for themselves and more likely to call BS when shady people try to abuse religion?
Again, I never said ALL religion is bad. I never said ALL religious people are bad. You can put that straw man away. My argument is that some religions are rooted more in Mythology than reality and that is going to distort peoples worldview, hinder rational thought, and possibly encourage irrational/dangerous behavior. So far you have not disproven my arguments.
I would like to see it become more difficult for that tool (religion) to be used by shady and dangerous individuals. That happens when people are better educated, more open minded, and capable of thinking for themselves. Are you against that?
That depends what denomination of Christianity I belonged to doesn't it? If it were the average American church I would probably be inclined (because of the Church and its views) to have an anti-LGBT attitude. But, thankfully I haven't bought into the (irrational) idea that members of the LGBT community are sinful people that don't deserve the same rights as god fearing folk.
JustWondering
Jerk
I was just commenting on the blatant hypocrisy of Christian conservatives that not only don't want to share their wealth with the poor but also demonize and insult them, all while calling themselves Christian.
I also find it amusing that the religious right love calling America a "Christian Country" when are government was clearly meant to be secular and we are one of the few first world countries that refuses to institute universal health care. Letting people die from lack of medical care because they're poor is surely the Christian thing to do, right?
The whole point of my post was to show the level of average American Christians blatant, mindless, arrogant hypocrisy. The fact that you responded mindlessly with a republican talking point is f**king hilarious.
JustWondering
Jerk
So the only thing that can possibly be good about someone else's religion is the parts that are similar to your religion.
What is your empirical evidence and line of reasoning to support that Hinduism is false?
So it's ok to pay taxes that finance drones bombing people in foreign countries and giving tax breaks to the mega rich but it wouldn't be Christian to pay taxes that also support people getting access to medical care and medicine they need to live. I find it funny that when the religious right mobilizes to pass laws based on their religious principles it's only laws that discriminate against people not to help people.
So your evidence amounts to "It's written down in an old book therefore its true"? By that standard of "evidence" Mormonism and Scientology are undeniably true religions as well. Any religion/story that is written down and had witnesses are ALL true. Gee, isn't that convenient.
JustWondering
Jerk
Can you rewrite this possibly? I don't know what you're trying to say.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I believe in "mythological" stories and I am well informed and educated of what my beliefs mean, how affect me, others, and how they make me a better person. I believe that my beliefs are grounded in reality or I wouldnt follow them.
Maybe you are talking about just christians. If so, I only half agree because I know the experience of the sacraments are real just as I know spirit of jesus as with other spirits exist too.
I Know this. I dont follow christianity and I know it as a religion and a personal former faih that does not promote harm, politics, and any nonesense people speak of of the religion itself.
Whether its grounded in reality or not does not matter unless that person uses that true or false religion as a weapon. To tell you honestly, Id be more concerned about true religions that arent imaginary. If they were used as weapons wed know how to address it. Arguing over christianity is like debating with an imaginary friend you all keepnsaying is false but then when I say "address the people" yall stuck on the imaginary friend.
Out of the christian and non christian debater. Id side wih the christian.
Youre talking about christianity? How and whst defines reality that makes a Pagan, christian, and hindu religion false?
False does not mean its not valuable. Placebo pills have the same affect as real meds. What about them being false invalidates their value?
Religion is practices of ones faith. I have a religion. So does a hindu. So do pagans.
If religion is politics, why are you all putting down Buddhist religions? What about Toaist?
Religion is not political. People in politics abuse religion for their purposes as many people do here when thry fuss against against it as if religion is somehow tied to christianity.
I am blunt. I know you didnt say that. I think youre talking about christianity. Religion in general (religions) do not hinder critical thinking. The Buddha taught highly against believing in what cannot be analyzed.
Drop the word religion and talk about christianity. Religion does nothing. Specific religious (not religions) do.
Many people do and they are religious too. One can believe in mythology as basis of reality and still be rational in behavior. I know Im not perfect but Im no politician. So is my Catholic friend and Buddhist friend. A lot of geneaizations.
Im for people who use religion for the good. Ive seen people abuse catholicism and their role in the Church. Ive seen people strengthen the Church and who she says she is to the people. Ive seen religion/religious practices used for the good (prayer), Ive seen it used for the bad 911 for example.
Its not religion. Once you put religion, you are talking about people who have nothing to do with what youre talking about.
I wouldnt think so unless you were influenced by the People to have bias views. Cathlics have good reason to be anti- LGBT. I understand. It makez sense. I disagree. Evangelical faiths are not "forceful." They are hihly bible oriented and if you dont know your bible youd be treating people mean just as every other poor manner evang. Ive met.
Its how you follow your faith and relationship with god. If you feel you have to be unfair because of a rule in doctrine, then that sounds like a moral issue not religion. I was never against LGBT views as a former catholic. If I were, I see no need to protest and shut down businesses and screaming gay marriage is a sin.
Thatz not part of the faith. People get hurt by religions that hey cant defierientate (on cell sorry spll) religion and people. Its like someone going through rape and another male unlike the rapistbwant to date the victim but she puts her ideas of the rapist on the new guy.
I dont know if yall see it. but indoctrination makes it hard to see outside he box.
JustWondering
Jerk
I think the core of our disagreement is that you think religion adds more value to life and endorse it where I think it is more negative and it's influence should be decreased.
Looking in from the outside I guess it is easier to see what influence religion has on people's views and way of thinking. For example: if someone believes that the world is going to end because of their angry god because their holy book says so then why should they be concerned about polluting the environment? They know how the world is going to end and it's not from pollution. Such a worldview is dangerous, yet you seem unable/unwilling to cede this obvious point, yes?
Religions that make fantastical claims but cannot back them up with evidence and sound reasoning should be called out for their BS just like non-religious claims should be called out. I do not believe that just because a religion gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling inside that they should be free from analysis and debate.
JustWondering
Jerk
I can dismiss whatever I like, especially if it has no evidence and rational argument to back it up.
What version of the teleological argument are you referring to and why should anyone assume that it proves the existence of your specific god and not some other religions god/s?
It was a response to another poster's argument. I was making it clear that conflict is inevitable in life and I will actively fight in support for what I think is right. It was not a literal statement that someone was oppressing me. Do you have reading comprehension issues?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Ok then. You can dismiss anything you do not like, but you shouldn't because that makes for one pathetic argument.
There is only one type of teleological argument, or at least there is only one type of mainstream teleological argument but I was not referring to what it proves (though it does make the proposition of God far more likely than chance). I was referring to the existence of the patterns the argument is based on.
My goodness, I sense much hostility in you which clouds your judgment. Why are you so frustrated?
JustWondering
Jerk
The fact that life exists does not mean that the universe was fined tuned in order for life to exist. Even if by some stretch of the imagination you had actual evidence that supported fine tuning that does not point to the Christian god's existence. In fact, since the bible claims that certain celestial bodies were created in a certain order in six days fine tuning would be evidence AGAINST your god.
We have debated before and when I get you to a position that you cannot rationally defend you refuse to bow out gracefully. You have a very high opinion of yourself and your ability to present logical arguments but when your arguments are demolished you are anything but logical in your responses. It will be the same this time as well.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Again, I was not attempting to defend the teleological argument. I was attempting to see if deny that the patterns it relies upon do not exist. I was trying to find out if you only deny patterns you do not like or if you denied that any patterns exist. It was an attempt to show the absurdity of your argumentation concerning patterns. I have no problem in showing how that certain quantities and values which are not the result of natural law are almost infinitely more indicative of design compered to chance, but as that was not the context you were speaking in I was simply critiquing the horrific argument you used to deny that which you find inconvenient. You can pick the original claim I made, the soundness of the teleological argument, or you can intellectually punt and give up. Take your pick.
That was a textbook example of hypocrisy. To make a bunch of claims to victories you do not even attempt to reference and then call me arrogant, all I can say is wow!!! At least I can give you an award for the funniest post I have had seen all day. I have no recollection of you but I will bet that you became frustrated, quit, and attempted to blame your surrender on me in our last debate. Either give up or make an actual argument.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
In the words of Bill Wilson, paraphrased, athiests believe the universe came from nothing, means nothing and is quickly headed towards nothing. It is easier to believe in a god.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I actually try not to look at things negatively because when I do, I go back to the "they vs. me" mindset. If religious commit murder because of their religion, I am not an exception to the rule. Since I don't see people as "sinners", I tend to ear towards positive experiences with religion. I know religion isn't bad. I just know people use it poorly.
I see it as: People: I have a motivation to kill and my religion says I can do so, therefore it's permissible regardless of who says otherwise.
I don't see it as: Religion says X, so people who blindly follow this religion X will be coerced to kill.
That's like blaming the music teenagers listen to because they went out and tried to kill themselves. Take away the music. One person's poison is another person's medicine.
It does. It adds value to my life. It adds value to many people's lives I came across through my Catholic and Buddhist years. To tell these people they are wrong regardless of how irrational their beliefs may be, is totally immoral.
Those people who do not find value in religion is their preference. It's not their lost but I would hope they understand that just because they find negativity in their religious experience, that does not mean other people are false in theirs regardless if the religion is fake or not
Since you're talking about that someone (the person/people) then whatever motive they have behind using their religion falsely, I disagree with. It does indoctrinate people and harm people. If that person used religion as it is defined and supposed to be used as a means to better ones life, then danger would not happen and people won't be so fussy about the word religion.
We disagree here. Some people get warm and fuzzy feelings. Other people have spiritual growth that comes with pain and pleasure. It comes with changing our lives for the better, knowing ourselves more, and so on. Regardless if its the sutras, the vedas, or the bible that helps with this is not the point. Calling these guides BS is putting down many Pagans, Christians, Hindu, and so forth who are religious and take their religions seriously to where they don't abuse it by killing in the name of their faith.
To me, that is religion. I experienced this in other faiths. I experienced this in my faith. What I see on t.v. and what people talk about on RF does not make up what individual people experience that changes their lives not at the expense of another persons rights.
Outside of that, I dont see where your definition of religion comes from. The dictionary doesnt have opinions and bias. It just says religions involve traditions, practices, etc from a given belief system of worship.
-
I can't help that people have bad experiences with Christianity and using the word religion to talk about their experiences with the Christian faith. I think many of us Pagans, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc would probably appreciate it if we just talked directly about Christianity. Calling religions ineffective and based on mythological claims is totally generalizing religions as if all religions fall under this category.
They don't. You mention Christianity a lot. Let's stick with that.
I see it as: People: I have a motivation to kill and my religion says I can do so, therefore it's permissible regardless of who says otherwise.
I don't see it as: Religion says X, so people who blindly follow this religion X will be coerced to kill.
That's like blaming the music teenagers listen to because they went out and tried to kill themselves. Take away the music. One person's poison is another person's medicine.
It does. It adds value to my life. It adds value to many people's lives I came across through my Catholic and Buddhist years. To tell these people they are wrong regardless of how irrational their beliefs may be, is totally immoral.
Those people who do not find value in religion is their preference. It's not their lost but I would hope they understand that just because they find negativity in their religious experience, that does not mean other people are false in theirs regardless if the religion is fake or not
Since you're talking about that someone (the person/people) then whatever motive they have behind using their religion falsely, I disagree with. It does indoctrinate people and harm people. If that person used religion as it is defined and supposed to be used as a means to better ones life, then danger would not happen and people won't be so fussy about the word religion.
We disagree here. Some people get warm and fuzzy feelings. Other people have spiritual growth that comes with pain and pleasure. It comes with changing our lives for the better, knowing ourselves more, and so on. Regardless if its the sutras, the vedas, or the bible that helps with this is not the point. Calling these guides BS is putting down many Pagans, Christians, Hindu, and so forth who are religious and take their religions seriously to where they don't abuse it by killing in the name of their faith.
To me, that is religion. I experienced this in other faiths. I experienced this in my faith. What I see on t.v. and what people talk about on RF does not make up what individual people experience that changes their lives not at the expense of another persons rights.
Outside of that, I dont see where your definition of religion comes from. The dictionary doesnt have opinions and bias. It just says religions involve traditions, practices, etc from a given belief system of worship.
-
I can't help that people have bad experiences with Christianity and using the word religion to talk about their experiences with the Christian faith. I think many of us Pagans, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc would probably appreciate it if we just talked directly about Christianity. Calling religions ineffective and based on mythological claims is totally generalizing religions as if all religions fall under this category.
They don't. You mention Christianity a lot. Let's stick with that.
JustWondering
Jerk
Not defending the teleological argument is wise because it is a horrible argument. Now back to the core of what we were debating about. What patterns are you willing to defend that show intelligent design is a plausible?
Prediction: At some point I will ask who created the creator because you will trot out the tired argument that something complex cannot exist without a creator. Since a creator god would undoubtedly be a complex being it would need a creator. This will be the point where rational discourse with you becomes impossible.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Here's another thing. How can a false or fake religion make anyone do anything? If god is fake, that person would have to make up a god in his head, assume this god tells him to do X, and follow it in a fake book that has no value in it but to the one who makes up justifications for his motives.
If I read about a unicorn telling me to go kill Jane and there are no such things as unicorns, it would be up to me to define what the unicorn is and what it says. The whole religious experience would not exist independent of myself.
Blaming the unicorn for my motives is the same as a believer saying the unicorn tells him to do X, Y, or Z. Both are in the same boat.
Unless both parties understand that religion comes from the person and how he or she wants to use it for the good or bad, you guys will always be arguing over unicorns, trying to find evidence on one side or the other using unicorns as a basis of beter oneself or abusing it to harm others.
If I read about a unicorn telling me to go kill Jane and there are no such things as unicorns, it would be up to me to define what the unicorn is and what it says. The whole religious experience would not exist independent of myself.
Blaming the unicorn for my motives is the same as a believer saying the unicorn tells him to do X, Y, or Z. Both are in the same boat.
Unless both parties understand that religion comes from the person and how he or she wants to use it for the good or bad, you guys will always be arguing over unicorns, trying to find evidence on one side or the other using unicorns as a basis of beter oneself or abusing it to harm others.
JustWondering
Jerk
Again, I have not said all religion is bad and always abused. I condone open discussion that is centered around facts and evidence and rational thought, sprinkled generously with empathy and concern for ones fellow humans on this planet. I believe the more educated and informed people are, the less influence religion will have on people in general, and it will be a good thing. Am I going to go to a church/temple/etc... while they're having services and tell them they're wrong and they're religion is wrong? No. Am I going to tell a dying child that thinks they're going to heaven that heaven doesn't exist? No. Am I going to have honest discussions about my views with other adults who are willing to discuss it though they have differences of opinion? Yes. I know my title correctly labels me as a jerk but I'm not an a****le. I don't think it's irrational to discuss religion when we have policy makers who are science deniers and would rather base decisions based off religious views then reason. Especially when their decisions affect everyone.
