• 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!

Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Sentience is the most meaningful subject of morality.

Promoting happiness towards all sentient beings is moral, promoting unhappiness towards other sentient beings is immoral.
You guys keep inventing new words to say the same thing. No matter what words are used to base it on, it all winds up as opinion. Since you have illiminated a higher objective standard to appeal to then you have no way to value one persons opinion over another. Being that opinions are known to be fickle and everyone has a differing one, then you have created moral chaos. Happyness as as first principle is about as rediculous as feelings as a basis for morality. For example heroin may make you happy but you will die young. Porn may make you happy but it will destroy familys. Adultery may make you happy but children suffer. ETC... infinitum. How can systems you declare to be morally neutral ever be used to develope morals superior to the bible.

Objective morality doesnt work for a "better" system at LEAST from a reilgious perspective because there are far too many religions saying they got the one.

So, even if objective morality exists and it is in one religion, then all the other religions are far more conflicting towards a common morality than atheism or agnosticism, because atheism and agnosticism is at least neutral on the subject, while religions can't.
If it's such a bad system then why does virtually everyone, includeing people who won't admit it believe in it and rely on it. Every one who has ever said "This isn't fair" has appealed to an objective standard, and that includes you. My argument is from a theoretical perspective not an application. Whether religions dissagree in reality doesn't effect whether Christianity is the right system or not. Christianity is not meant for governmental institution. It is meant for individual adoption. You are attacking something I am not preposing.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Oh, I can certainly accept that accolade :D Most people are dreadfully stupid, and no progress was ever made following the guy ahead of you.
Humility becomes you. Do you actually believe you are smarter than Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, Pasteur, all the combined knowledge of thousands of proffesional thealogians, textual scholars, historians etc... who would laugh at your take on Christianity.


My soul belongs to a more competent, truly just set of Gods and I have no concern whatsoever for your Pascal's Wager, and it's false dichotomy.
I looked up your iron clad religion, or I should say looked for it. It practically doesn't exist. While mine has billions and billions of believers and the most attested text of ancient history. I have already proved that and your cherry picking selective memory will not get me to do it again. I will ask again, What texts do you rely on for your beliefs?
 

Orias

Left Hand Path
There is no good - or even coherent - answer to the question: its sole redeeming quality is that it's more honest than many.

I mind as well throw in that its because their counterparts are no better.

Their counter parts being the religiously non-religious.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
No it isn't.
Yes it is. Man that was easy.

In any case, what I am talking of here is that an apostle, a real apostle, was one of those who learned right at Jesus' feet. Paul does not qualify. Yet his words are literally confused with Jesus' own many times {I've watched you do it yourself often]. They were tax collectors etc until they abandoned those lives and became his followers. After that, they were receiving instructions 'directly from the source' if you want to quibble that Jesus was a literal conduit for God. Anybody else is second-hand, including Paul. Paul's lack of deep knowledge was painfully obvious when he first came among them and he only got better by being among the actual apostles
You are makeing this far too easy. Of all the apostles Paul had the only formal training in Old testament theology: HIS TRAINING IN JERUSALEM No doubt Saul left his home during his early adolescence and was taken to Jerusalem for his formal education in the most prominent rabbinical schools of that day. Among his teachers, young Saul had the privilege to be trained by Gamaliel, the most outstanding rabbi teacher of that time (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel was one of the most honorable and reputable Jewish rabbis during the days of the Apostles (Acts 5:34). He was the grandson of Hillel, the founder of the most influential rabbinical school of Judaism. Gamaliel was also the president of the Sanhedrin in succession of his father.
Tracing the Steps of the Apostle Paul*-*Truth in History

As far as the new testament is concerned:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the heathen (ethnos or nations) ..."
Galatians 1:11-12, 15-16

His claim to revelation from Christ is no less valid than any other apostle.
He was chosen by Christ himself, and affirmed by the other apostles. If they declared him authentic who are you to argue. Look who I'm talking to. His views were always upheld even in dissagreements with other apostles. He wrote more of the new testament that anyone. It isn't possible to prove any position as wrong as your is here.
However, no matter whom they were, they NEVER possessed the authority to change or undo God's laws.
So if God told them to write down the new covenant they could not have done it because you said so. Jesus himself introduced the new covenant.

Wow, so you think the suffering of the Jews is because they ignore God's laws. Holy **** son, you are all over the map of profane.
Are you being this wrong on purpose? Ezekiel 4:5-6
“For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.”

· Punishment = 390 years + 40 years = 430 years

Because of their disobedience to God's commands, the Israelites (Jews) were taken captive in 605 B.C. by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36:5-21).
I can supply about a hundred more and more can be found here:
1948 Prophecy Fulfilled
However I won't make any difference. It seems convienience trumps facts in your theological chaos.

I've danced the tango around you since the moment you arrived here, Mr Dunning-Kruger.
Well if you would do more research and less dancing you might have made a more challengeing case. Or one at all.

I realize the idea of divine retribution appeals to some like you; but we are talking of the thief on the cross sitting right next to Jesus. have you got a grasp of the conversation? If the thief was hung because God saw he was unjust.. then Jesus must have been unjust too, because there he was under the same condition. Think about that idea you are expressing, and then think about the scene we are looking at, when we are discussing it.
I don't even like devine retribution. Unlike you I don't decide what's true based on what I want to be so. There is so many things absolutely wrong with this statement I have to put it in list form.
1. I said even the thief himself said he broke the law and deserved punishment, and so your position is null and void. That means you won't admit it but instead cast about for a diversion.
2. The only evidence that exists for this thief suggests he was not a law abiding Jew, so your statement that he was not only was wrong but completely made up.
3. Have you actually read the bible? This same thief also declares that Jesus does not deserve his punishment, while the thief says that he does. For crying out loud it's in the same verse.
4.It is you who don't seem to even have a sunday school level of education about the scene.

If God said the Thief was getting what he deserved why did Jesus give him a pass to Paradise?
I was laughing so hard the Christian Phd I work with came over and read this stuff. He said you are a troll and being so wrong on purpose. I agree. Jesus is God and can declare Hitler righteous if Hitler believed, if he wants. Since all have sinned includeing the Jews and you, your complete denial of every biblical theme of justification by faith dooms everyone includeing you. Thank God you are completely wrong.

Any time you've offered this bland excuse it's been a case of deduction or simple psychological observation on my part; you're forgetting the context of what we are talking about, again. I am speaking of ALL the times you dismissed en mass ALL the fallacy spotting done to your posts. Please.
Nice punt.

Look, as hard as this may be to swallow, human behavior is very predictable. It fits into patterns. People who grasp or are interested in that kind of thing, can see the patterns. All I am doing is pointing out the behavior you are expressing in your posts. It's not actually that hard. I do not need omnipotence nor do I need to be inside your mind to know why you do things, or why you are reacting, when it's right there in front of us in your words. 'Claim to knowledge', if you think that's a legitimate debate fallacy idea try codifying it. Describe fully what it actually means. Give it a snazzy name. Get it 'published' somewhere. Then you can stand beside me. Definitely a leg up for you, considering.
Human nature is so predictable it has led to weapons that can destroy all mankind and to medicine that has stopped polio for all mankind. I am no longer interested in your evaluations of anything.
Oh, but you do mind when I do that.

You see, like that other poster, I've been educating you on the faults of your reasoning; you take that as an insult and refuse to see or learn. When something you've said is dismissed I've given reasons.
You have been educateing me alright. You have revealed not a lack of knowledge, but a aversion to it stronger than I would have ever guessed.
You are just dreadfully disingenuous when things go against you.

Stormtrooper.. Stormtrooper.. Stormtrooper...
It's pretty bad when this is the most relevant thing in your posts.

I QUOTED IT RIGHT AFTER THAT YOU SILLY PERSON. THAT WAS YOUR QUOTE WITH THE WORD 'QUOTE' IN BLUE.
But that quote perfectly lines up with my position and stands in oposition to yours. I said you didn't produce a quote by me that justifies your claims and you still haven't.


You have lost your grip on reality.
Reading your posts will do that.

In addition I would recommend that probably for your first time, you should actually Google up the 613 Levitical laws and see what they actually say. They do not read like something only priests could do.
For God's sake, there are sections containing only ceremonial law.

Direct observation of your own words.
This is not a mere personal fact, it's your visible habit.
Ooohhh, but wait, I forgot, we are dealing here with a person who thinks all of psychological medicine is quackery.
I never said that. Of course that has no bearing on you claiming I did. I said your rediculous addiction psychology is less than quackery, and the rest of psychology contains vast areas of guesswork.


Interestingly enough the Thief was not repentant in all the gospels; what specific gospel is the only one you use? If he were repentant I would guess it's Luke. And only Luke.
If you reject things said in a hundred places in the bible why would all four gospels make a difference. The gospels all cover different angles on purpose. They employ literary techniques such as telescopeing, etc..... If they did say the same exact things you would be the first one yelling they just copied one another. You have to step up your game or I have will have to look elsewhere for a challengeing discussion. I have never seen comments so the polar opposite of truths so well known that sunday school children understand them perfectly. Opposing viewpoints based on sound logic and consistency with what they are addressing are interesting, your isn't.

As for such guilt, I have none
That explains alot.

New International Version (©1984)
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Sincerely God.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
I looked up your iron clad religion, or I should say looked for it. It practically doesn't exist. While mine has billions and billions of believers and the most attested text of ancient history. I have already proved that and your cherry picking selective memory will not get me to do it again. I will ask again, What texts do you rely on for your beliefs?

The amount of people who believe a claim does not make the claim true. So, what does population have to do with it?
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
And it doesn't lessen it's absolute truth either.
The absolute truth of a fallacious argument? Now you're getting desperate.
I have already had to prove Hitler's motives in his own words. I ain't doing the whole thing over. My posts can be found easily enough in this forum ... If you will read my posts on the subject you will realise this is all a bunch of crap. You are actually suggesting that the man more responsible for violence created in the name of the superiority of one race over another than any one else in history would have not been sypathetic to a book that spoke more on justifying race inequality than any other in history, and that was just at this time becomeing a very popular idea.
Fine. Give us an alternative explanation for Origin of Species being banned in Nazi Germany - one that is in keeping with how much the Nazis loved and were inspired by it.
Next you will suggest just like many atheists do that actually he was following the bible ...
No, that would be just as stupid as claiming that Nazism was inspired by Darwin. The Nazis were a bunch of brutal thugs who made up their ideology as they went along; Nazism had no intellectual roots, either theological or scientific.
... which contains the greatest justification for the equality of man in history.
As long as you weren't a Canaanite, Amalekite, Midianite...
 

Orias

Left Hand Path
Lets all remember that intellectual design is a property of who is in charge.

If one was so much smarter then they would have survived, with that being said Nazism is still prevalent in the world today.

That doesn't make the concept an "intellectual" one but it works and is progressive towards a goal.

"Intellectual" is a soft and hardy term used to describe content and willingness to comply with what is at hand.

A guy that is 6 "6" 260 pounds may not be as smart as a guy 5 "11" but he will be stronger and more physically gifted. In essence, the intellectual are merely allowed to live given that they do not possess the intelligence to physically defend themselves (unless they do of course).

With that being said though, if one claims to be more intelligent yet fails to defend their vital existence then they are as stupid as they are expecting a sword to never be drawn on them.

 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
The amount of people who believe a claim does not make the claim true. So, what does population have to do with it?
I never said it did but it is a category of evidence to be considered. If you believe in a religion that no-one else can except, I can not prove you wrong but it does effect the probablity. I have actually had atheists get mad because I would not admit that the fact that more scientists believe in evolution than don't matters. They use arguments like peer review, or universally accepted but then deny their use by a Christian. In truth numbers matter but never prove anything.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
The absolute truth of a fallacious argument? Now you're getting desperate.
I can no longer remember what this is addressing. Thank God.
Fine. Give us an alternative explanation for Origin of Species being banned in Nazi Germany - one that is in keeping with how much the Nazis loved and were inspired by it.
That's completely irrelevant. If you find where I posted all those quotes they leave no room for doubt.

No, that would be just as stupid as claiming that Nazism was inspired by Darwin. The Nazis were a bunch of brutal thugs who made up their ideology as they went along; Nazism had no intellectual roots, either theological or scientific.
...
I never said evolution either caused Nazism or their actions. I said they used it to justify their actions. As you will easily see if you find all those posts I mentioned.

As long as you weren't a Canaanite, Amalekite, Midianite
Good grief, are you willing to warp anything to make a point. These groups were not destroyed because they were Amalekites, Canaanites, etc... They were wiped out because they were evil. I saw a secular documentary that said the Canaanites walled up live children in buildings for good look. They even showed a couple of old foundations that had bones in them. The bible also mentions their complete depravity. Find me any scripture that supports your idea that they were wiped out because of the race they belonged to alone.
 
Last edited:

Me Myself

Back to my username
Happyness as as first principle is about as rediculous as feelings as a basis for morality. For example heroin may make you happy but you will die young. Porn may make you happy but it will destroy familys.

That's because you are viewing it with a very narrow scope. Most drug addicts wont describe themselves as happy. So getting addicted to heroin will make you miserable in the long run, and probably interrupt happiness of most your family and friends that care about you.

About porn, I dont even know what you are talking about.

If it's such a bad system then why does virtually everyone, includeing people who won't admit it believe in it and rely on it. Every one who has ever said "This isn't fair" has appealed to an objective standard, and that includes you.

That's nonsense. Everyone that has said that portrait is ugly has been talking subjectively, and still they can say it.

My argument is from a theoretical perspective not an application.

If it cannot be applied, then what does it matter? :shrug:

whether religions dissagree in reality doesn't effect whether Christianity is the right system or not. Christianity is not meant for governmental institution. It is meant for individual adoption. You are attacking something I am not preposing.

The (kinda hyperbolic and somewhat sarcastic) title says why are RELIGIOUS people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric and evil. Christianity is just one of hundreds of religions, so I don't really care.

I say that some religious people can be more disgustingly stupid barbaric and evil because their religion tells them X or Y thing is "this" way, and they think they must believe it in "faith".

As Christopher Hitchens said: Bad people do bad things without religion, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

I am merely pointing at that religions do have a dark side, and it is one worth acknowledging.
 

Orias

Left Hand Path
I'd say this entire thread is a prime example of the OP.

Just look at all of the rational statements that were disregarded.

The more important thing is how much more barbaric one is than the other, and that seems to be it considering most of the arguments.

Its all a bunch of nonsense :facepalm:
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I never said evolution either caused Nazism or their actions. I said they used it to justify their actions.

Eugenics is not The Theory of Evolution, though, is it? So far as I know, the Nazis were into eugenics, rather than evolution.
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
Ok, let's nail this down: What exactly is the point of this discussion? Seriously! Was there an actual (as in non-rhetorical) question, or is this just a soap box for venting some not-too-well-thought-out frustrations?
 

Orias

Left Hand Path
Eugenics is not The Theory of Evolution, though, is it? So far as I know, the Nazis were into eugenics, rather than evolution.

With that being said, selective breeding requires a strong knowledge of genetics and evolution.

All you have to do is ask a cow breeder :D


Ok, let's nail this down: What exactly is the point of this discussion? Seriously! Was there an actual (as in non-rhetorical) question, or is this just a soap box for venting some not-too-well-thought-out frustrations?

A little of both, its like I said, its because the counterparts to the religious folk are no better themselves simply because they religiously follow a non-religious regime.
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
I can no longer remember what this is addressing. Thank God ... That's completely irrelevant. If you find where I posted all those quotes they leave no room for doubt ... I never said evolution either caused Nazism or their actions. I said they used it to justify their actions. As you will easily see if you find all those posts I mentioned.
What a phenomenal cop-out. Sorry, 1robin, if you can't be bothered to summarise your own arguments, I'm certainly not going to crawl over the thread in search of them.
Good grief, are you willing to warp anything to make a point. These groups were not destroyed because they were Amalekites, Canaanites, etc... They were wiped out because they were evil. I saw a secular documentary that said the Canaanites walled up live children in buildings for good look. They even showed a couple of old foundations that had bones in them. The bible also mentions their complete depravity.
Yes, the bible does; but just imagine history had turned out differently, and we had preserved and sacralised the Canaanites' scriptures. Who do you think would come out looking depraved then? We have in the OT a record - much of it probably wishful thinking - of wars between barbarian tribes. Since we have only the winners' account, it's hardly surprising the losers are depicted as irredeemably evil and ripe for extermination.

Even if (and it's a big if) the Canaanites & co. were as evil as the OT paints them, slaughtering their children seems a strange way to save them from being sacrificed.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
Eugenics is not The Theory of Evolution, though, is it? So far as I know, the Nazis were into eugenics, rather than evolution.

It does come from evolution theory.

Eugenics stemmed from the theory of evolution and the notion you could clean the gene pool, there were a small group of people in England pushing for a Eugencis programme but they could not get funding for it.

The United States took it up, they got state approval and private funding, much of it from Jewish benefactors it had been going in America for a number of years before getting taken up by the Germans.

You would think that would be the end of eugenics but the US continued into the 1960's.

To a lesser degree it still occurs today. For instance a pregnant mother will have a number of tests on the unborn in a bid to prevent a disabled child being born.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It does come from evolution theory.

Eugenics stemmed from the theory of evolution and the notion you could clean the gene pool, there were a small group of people in England pushing for a Eugencis programme but they could not get funding for it.

The United States took it up, they got state approval and private funding, much of it from Jewish benefactors it had been going in America for a number of years before getting taken up by the Germans.

You would think that would be the end of eugenics but the US continued into the 1960's.

To a lesser degree it still occurs today. For instance a pregnant mother will have a number of tests on the unborn in a bid to prevent a disabled child being born.

Eugenics stemmed from a misunderstanding of evolution, not from evolution. Evolution does not support eugenics.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
That's because you are viewing it with a very narrow scope. Most drug addicts wont describe themselves as happy. So getting addicted to heroin will make you miserable in the long run, and probably interrupt happiness of most your family and friends that care about you.
I happen to have a limited history with drugs. The problem is they do make you happy. I don't think they are such a problem because they make you sad. Something might eventually make you miserable but that is another case of where the ineptitude of happyness as the prime mover for morals is evident.

About porn, I dont even know what you are talking about.
Porn is probably the most prevelant sin commited by men atleast. I don't think their risking their family on something that makes them sad. And you know exactly what I am talking about. It's hard to discuss things with someone who can't even agree on the common ground of some of the most obvious things in life.


That's nonsense. Everyone that has said that portrait is ugly has been talking subjectively, and still they can say it.
The concept of beauty is objective. Whether that means ugly or good is subjective. The fact that everyone looks at a waterfall and thinks of a term associated with beauty is evidence.


If it cannot be applied, then what does it matter?
I did not know that we were tasked by the UN to create a world governmental system. I didn't say it can't be done I said it was not given for that purpose. It would be a seperate and much longer conversation to deal with that.



The (kinda hyperbolic and somewhat sarcastic) title says why are RELIGIOUS people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric and evil. Christianity is just one of hundreds of religions, so I don't really care.

I say that some religious people can be more disgustingly stupid barbaric and evil because their religion tells them X or Y thing is "this" way, and they think they must believe it in "faith".

As Christopher Hitchens said: Bad people do bad things without religion, but it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

I am merely pointing at that religions do have a dark side, and it is one worth acknowledging.
Well atleast a religion can make a justifiable case to support the reality of good and evil. Non religous people can't. The terms have no absolute meaning. I will admit that religous people including Christians have a dark side. However in Christianity their action were not consistent with the religion and therefore have no bearing on it.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Eugenics stemmed from a misunderstanding of evolution, not from evolution. Evolution does not support eugenics.
The only part of it that is inconsitent with evolution is intentionality vs chance. Hitler just sped up the process by introduceing directed intellect into the mix instead of blind chance. Eugenics is only one small part of what Hitler was up to. I wasn't even thinking of it when I was discussing Hitler's use of evolutionary principles to justify his actions.
 
Top