What do you believe?

[liloe]

Some do, but very few. Not enough to make computer games a bad thing. Millions of people dying because of religion (+ all the other bad things) is enough to make it a bad thing.

That basically answered my question and at the same time I hope it activated your braincells in regards to what I mean with "generalising".

I didnt see a question there, just answers to questions/arguments. But anway, how do you feel about gay people?

How do I feel is maybe the wrong question. I don't feel special towards them cause it's not something you can really see if you meet them (in contrast to saying: "I feel a bit uncomfortable when meeting dumb people, cause I don't want to embarrass anyone).

I don't think it's right what they do and then you ask me, that's what I will say. Is it that what you mean with feel? Or do you mean how I behave? Cause then as I already said, I have no problems doing stuff with them. I man it's not like they are alien beings or such ^^

Didnt you just say you respect other peoples beliefs? If you dont respect nature religions then why should we respect your religion?

Eh, sarcasm is not your strength, aye?

I think liloe meant that in a sarcastic manner, as in, in norse mythology, nature religions, animis etc, there are no leaders, no money going about, or other of that "corporate religion" stuff.

Thanks for explaining that =) Sarcasm is such a lost cause sometimes

 

[old.Tohtori]

I dont think its a question of validity - the norse gods and the christian god are both equally valid as equally un-provable - just a matter of description.

You could start an organisation based on the norse gods and that would be a religion.

Heres an example - I could believe theres an invisible magic teapot orbiting the earth - thats a belief - it would only be a religion if I founded the Magic Teapot Church.

But, as an example, norse religion is(or rather was and is still) a major religion, but since there's no churches or "organisation" about it, isn't it still as valid? Basing on your validity a bit, but i think you get what i mean.

Is an organisation necessary for a religion to be a religion?

 

[rynnor]

Is an organisation necessary for a religion to be a religion?

I think so - inherent in a religion is the desire to grow, to convert others etc. etc.

Thats why belief is a lot less troublesome than religion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think so - inherent in a religion is the desire to grow, to convert others etc. etc.

Thats why belief is a lot less troublesome than religion.

Don't get annoyed, but i have to disagree PARTLY there. Not all religions..umm...well, you know, want to grow or covert others. It's mostly the churchy ones that do so.

If not Norse, take Buddhism, i don't think they have an active recruitment plan either.

 

[Job]

A religions power is based on numbers, simple as that, because that's it sole purpose anyway.

The more suckers you can get to believe your bullshit the more power you have.
In life there are leaders and followers, people who mindlessly follow and those who manipulate this gullibilty to their own advantage.

The one good thing about mindless faith is that it protects man from finding out the real truth and when he finally unfolds the last puzzle he will realise how utterly pointless everything is.

The Church will sweep up then

Eventually every sentient entity in the universe will have 'GOD' mode and after a few years of running around naked , flying from star to star and banging the arse off every babe in the cosmos, then moving on to every thing that moves in the Universe he will sit down and realise that things are only of any worth when you can't have them.

The more I live life the more I have become aware that the emotion of desire is precious and to have it fulfilled eats slowly away until you have nothing left.
After 20 years of total debauchery I now find myself in the situation where if Jamie Pressley knocked on my door wearing a schooly outfit and wanted a threesome with me and Alizee in front of a class of 20 yr old Swiss finishing school for girls.. I would go meh.
I think that's what religion may actually be, the pursuit of eternal want.

 

[rynnor]

Don't get annoyed, but i have to disagree PARTLY there. Not all religions..umm...well, you know, want to grow or covert others. It's mostly the churchy ones that do so.

If not Norse, take Buddhism, i don't think they have an active recruitment plan either.

No you are right but theres an interesting story about Buddhism - the founder actually rejected all religions so its ironic that buddhism has slowly become one - give it another few hundred years and they'll be out there recruiting with the others.

But modern buddhism does fit some of the definition - its hierarchical and is definately organised - it just doesnt recruit actively.

I once quite like the idea of buddhism but now it kinda repels me - they regard people born with afflictions like downs syndrome or blindness without pity and rather see it as retribution or 'karma' for something performed in a previous life - pretty sick!

 

[rynnor]

After 20 years of total debauchery I now find myself in the situation where if Jamie Pressley knocked on my door wearing a schooly outfit and wanted a threesome with me and Alizee in front of a class of 20 yr old Swiss finishing school for girls.. I would go meh.
I think that's what religion may actually be, the pursuit of eternal want.

Welcome to nihilism

If reality has no purpose it doesnt mean we cannot build our own purpose for it.

There is still merit in living a decent life, helping others etc. - so what if theres no reward from the big beard in the sky - the universe is a wondrous place and theres so much left to see!

 

[Azurus]

After you have rejected religion on the basis of reason and scientific theory, the only logical outcome is nihilism. Those who don't arrive at this conclusion are also kidding themselves to some extent, just in the same way religious people do.

We all need to construct things to give ourselves purpose. Some people use religion, others just blindly conform to the standards of the day. Whatever gets you through the day really. I am personally an atheist although i went to a strict christian school and my parents are religious, however i don't have anything against religion in its purest form. Organised religion ofc has its problems, but so do alot of organisations, like the Nazis did. The problem is with large groups of people wishing to impose their will on others, like the Catholic church, like the Nazis, not with religion itself.

 

[dub]

I think the only "divider" problem is the people bashing other people for what/who/how they are, not the people believing, acting some way or being something.

now be serious , do you see many groups using extra parliamentary methods who claim to be based on agnostic teachings ? (marxist communist or ultragreens dont count , they are just believers)

you can extrapolate all you want from yourself and how nice you are to people , this doesnt remove the facts thou , religion is a major factor in dividing people , look around in say the middle east , or usa , or large parts of western africa.

and no matter how much people claim this has nothing to do with education level of the population you are arguing against the only tool we have , statistics , what you can assert without proof can be dismissed without proof ofc , but its still a hint that it would be wise to consider it a possible factor , i atleast wouldnt dismiss it as easily as some in this thread do.

 

[tierk]

She was an interesting lady - from her private letters it appears that she lost her faith many years before her death but continued on ministering to the poor and sick regardless - I'd say she's more an example of the good humanism can do than some religion she had lost faith in.

Its a sign of the desperation of the catholic church that they push a woman who had lost her faith forward for sainthood.....

I have to say that you certainly opened my eyes with your link about her private letters. However, what you fail to address is the multitudes of people worldwide who do go out and help others out. Do gooders so to speak.

With regards to your comment about the Catholic Church and dictators (esp Hitler and the Nazis) i would just like to point out that i did a major study on the role of the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany and the picture you paint is not noweher near as bad as you are making out. Also look at the positive role played by the church in places like South Africa or the help that church gave in Poland during Communist rule?

Sorry for the dealy in responding but i only just got back to my house.

 

[rynnor]

I have to say that you certainly opened my eyes with your link about her private letters. However, what you fail to address is the multitudes of people worldwide who do go out and help others out. Do gooders so to speak.

I never said religious people cant do good - and neither do I think all religious ideas are bad its just they are better arising from a personal moral code than from some unknowable deity since tomorrow he could just say 'kill the unbelievers!".

Organised religions are inherently bad - like most large organisations - except religions mess with areas even the Taxman wouldnt interfere in and cant accept that they might be bad since they paint themselves as good.

With regards to your comment about the Catholic Church and dictators (esp Hitler and the Nazis) i would just like to point out that i did a major study on the role of the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany and the picture you paint is not noweher near as bad as you are making out. Also look at the positive role played by the church in places like South Africa or the help that church gave in Poland during Communist rule?

On the Nazi's and the Catholic church its clear that they never ex-communicated Hitler and they never condemned his actions (until long after everyone was dead). If they had perhaps the concentration camps would never have happened - we shall never know.

South Africa was a popular uprising - I'm not sure how much of a role the church played really?

As for Poland - as stated before - the Communist party was a natural enemy of the Catholic church since they were both in the brainwashing business so its un-surprising that the church would oppose it where it could?

Edit: Hell communism practically was/is a religion - look at the queues to view Stalins preserved corpse - its just like the catholics with relics of their saints - no wonder the two were so opposed to each other - it must have been like looking in the mirror.

 

[Huntingtons]

I am personally an atheist although i went to a strict christian school and my parents are religious, however i don't have anything against religion in its purest form.

iirc then technically you're not an atheist since they object to the thought of god and in some sence are the fanatical non-believers. Agnostic is what i think your thoughts are called

 

[Rookiescot]

iirc then technically you're not an atheist since they object to the thought of god and in some sence are the fanatical non-believers. Agnostic is what i think your thoughts are called

Absolutely correct.

 

[Gorbachioo]

How do I feel is maybe the wrong question. I don't feel special towards them cause it's not something you can really see if you meet them (in contrast to saying: "I feel a bit uncomfortable when meeting dumb people, cause I don't want to embarrass anyone).

I don't think it's right what they do and then you ask me, that's what I will say. Is it that what you mean with feel? Or do you mean how I behave? Cause then as I already said, I have no problems doing stuff with them. I man it's not like they are alien beings or such ^^

And why is it not right?

This could be interesting.. !

 

[liloe]

And why is it not right?

This could be interesting.. !

This could not be interesting cause you know the answer already and so the outcoming situation is clear for both of us. You will say that my view sucks without remotely trying to understand my pov…so why again should I answer?

 

[rynnor]

This could not be interesting cause you know the answer already and so the outcoming situation is clear for both of us. You will say that my view sucks without remotely trying to understand my pov…so why again should I answer?

Its down to that old guy writing in the desert again eh - I guess if I had an in-defensible position I might keep quiet too eh?

Religion and bigotry hand in hand...

 

[liloe]

Its down to that old guy writing in the desert again eh - I guess if I had an in-defensible position I might keep quiet too eh?

Religion and bigotry hand in hand...

Look, what use would it be to give an answer? Like your post mentioned, the answer is crystal clear already, so why bother replying? If you didn't get the subtile hint in my last post, maybe now?

What we have at the moment is a war with both sides sitting in their dugouts, throwing arguments back and forth, while nothing is moving. Every time there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel, some people start turning around their arguments. Just check out the part about norse mythology. All of sudden it's not a religion because it has no leaders? I mean seriously, what kind of argument is that?

Then there is the point of people having no clue what they talk about. I already said that in another post, but if there is a thread asking for computer help, you're most likely gonna listen to those who have experience with it and have worked with it themselves.
On the other hand, when a "religion-thread" starts, everybody thinks they know it all. Sure, everyone is entitled to have their opinion, but if people want to discuss issues, then we should all agree to not make the same mistakes over and over again.

My personal impression is, that what most people mean is religion = catholic church and islam. Even worse than this is calling religion bigot, while being very picky when it comes to selecting examples.

The next point is that every time some argument about Christianity comes up, there are people claiming to have THE answers, yet have never even read the Bible and draw their conclusions from what they heard from others. I'm sorry, but if you want to discuss something SERIOUSLY, you get informed first and post then. In the same way that I ask for this, I'm not opening my mouth when it comes to arguments about Buddhism, Islam or any other religion I have no clue about.

Some people here seem to think that religious people are numbnuts who never check what they hear and that pretty much insults my attempts of trying to understand the work of different scientists. Now let me ask you - because this is such a popular topic in that context - have YOU tried to get more information on creation/evolution? And I don't mean the education videos from 1628 you get to see at school, I mean modern science.

The problem here is that some people actually discuss and some use "open minded" and "all religions suck" in the same sentence.

Have I made my point clear?

 

[dub]

Some people here seem to think that religious people are numbnuts who never check what they hear and that pretty much insults my attempts of trying to understand the work of different scientists. Now let me ask you - because this is such a popular topic in that context - have YOU tried to get more information on creation/evolution? And I don't mean the education videos from 1628 you get to see at school, I mean modern science.

hmm well its not that easy sto get information on creationism , there seem to be a distinct lack of articles proposing this in peer rewieved publications ....

 

[tierk]

hmm well its not that easy sto get information on creationism , there seem to be a distinct lack of articles proposing this in peer rewieved publications ....

I am pretty sure that Chronictank made some nice posts explaining the Muslim point of view on "creationism" as you guys call it. I cant find the link now (stuck at work and loads to do today unlike yesterday) to it but i am sure he will be kind enough to provide the link at some point in this discussion.

 

[Iceforge]

Some people here seem to think that religious people are numbnuts who never check what they hear and that pretty much insults my attempts of trying to understand the work of different scientists. Now let me ask you - because this is such a popular topic in that context - have YOU tried to get more information on creation/evolution? And I don't mean the education videos from 1628 you get to see at school, I mean modern science.

Sure.
Not really gotten anything new on creation, as that is an old theory, I know lots of the arguements that Creationists makes during debates about it and why all arguements I heard for it are worth nothing.
And yes, I know more about evolution than the very swallow introduction I got to it in public school. For some reason it was more important to learn how to recognize different kinds of birds than to learn about the origin of species at my school, so one had to get some knowledge from various other sources to stay informed.
And no reason to be sarcastic by the way when you state the dates, just say they are old rather than give some obviously false date.

And I agree that using "Open minded" about oneself and then saying "all religions suck" is kinda shallow and double standards, but generally in the debate of science vs. religion, if it is to be looked upon as a "combat" between them, the least open minded people are the religious people, as most atheists I know would gladly join any religion that could provide some kind of proof or large indicator to themselves being right, while most religious people I know, if asked about what could change them to not beliving, will answer "nothing!"
Faith is, by definition, to believe something without the question of doubt, even with a complete lack of evidence.
Or atleast, thats the impression most religious people I've ever meet has given me, and that is quite a few.

 

[liloe]

Sure.
Not really gotten anything new on creation, as that is an old theory, I know lots of the arguements that Creationists makes during debates about it and why all arguements I heard for it are worth nothing.
And yes, I know more about evolution than the very swallow introduction I got to it in public school. For some reason it was more important to learn how to recognize different kinds of birds than to learn about the origin of species at my school, so one had to get some knowledge from various other sources to stay informed.

That kinda makes you a (positive) exception, though =)

And no reason to be sarcastic by the way when you state the dates, just say they are old rather than give some obviously false date.

Well let's face it, most of the videos you see in biology are from the stone age and should get an update =) I know, money is the key here, but if your biology teacher has to stand there, telling you that this and that it outdated nowadays, that kinda makes you sad I think =)
I'm just a very sarcastic person and if you were at my uni, you'd become sarcastic when it comes to working with "modern" material aswell, I bet =)

EDIT: Not only biology, same goes for history and chemistry, but at least in Germany, biology is the traditional "video session"

 

[rynnor]

Then there is the point of people having no clue what they talk about. I already said that in another post, but if there is a thread asking for computer help, you're most likely gonna listen to those who have experience with it and have worked with it themselves.
On the other hand, when a "religion-thread" starts, everybody thinks they know it all. Sure, everyone is entitled to have their opinion, but if people want to discuss issues, then we should all agree to not make the same mistakes over and over again.

I was brought up a Christian and I even beleived as a child so I think my knowledge of the bible is at least as good as yours - hell I did bible class for years and large chunks of exodus are indelibly lodged in my brain.

I dont see what mistakes have been made - you admit to being homophobic on grounds of religion - my hope is that when your a bit older experience will teach you what a load of nonsense that is.

Why should we accept a view based on something a bunch of old men wrote in the desert hundreds of years ago.

Hell if you really did know the bible you would see all the terrible in-consistencies in it - its a book written by a comittee and they were happy to plagiarise too - some of it is stolen word for word from egyptian rites etc. etc.

And did you ever read exodus with the curses on Egypt - God plays both sides by telling Moses to threaten curses and then warping the Pharoah's mind so he refuses to let them go - where's the concept of free will there then?

The God of the old testament was an evil cantankerous megalomaniac - if he was a person living now they would section him.

You might want to try reading the bible before you try to defend it.

 

[liloe]

I was brought up a Christian and I even beleived as a child so I think my knowledge of the bible is at least as good as yours - hell I did bible class for years and large chunks of exodus are indelibly lodged in my brain.

That's a good thing then, but I wasn't really pointing towards you specifically.

I dont see what mistakes have been made - you admit to being homophobic on grounds of religion - my hope is that when your a bit older experience will teach you what a load of nonsense that is.

Heh, you don't even know how old I am and saying I'm homophobic is pretty wrong when comparing what I say to the definition of homophoby or its ethymology.

Why should we accept a view based on something a bunch of old men wrote in the desert hundreds of years ago.

Hell if you really did know the bible you would see all the terrible in-consistencies in it - its a book written by a comittee and they were happy to plagiarise too - some of it is stolen word for word from egyptian rites etc. etc.

And did you ever read exodus with the curses on Egypt - God plays both sides by telling Moses to threaten curses and then warping the Pharoah's mind so he refuses to let them go - where's the concept of free will there then?

The God of the old testament was an evil cantankerous megalomaniac - if he was a person living now they would section him.

You might want to try reading the bible before you try to defend it.

No, I never read the Bible of course. I write gigantic posts about how much I hate misinformation, but as religious person I'm by definition a hypocrit, so I didn't practice my own advice…

Contrary to you I see the Bible as very consistant book, considering how many people over how many years wrote it. Yes, it was ASSEMBLED by a council, but they didn't write it.

Now concerning egypt, let me ask you a question. If the Bible wouldn't speak of "hardening the pharao's heart", do you think an Egyptian pharao would let go more than 300.000 slaves? I think the answer is quite obvious =)

The God of the old testament is exactly the same as the god of the new testament, which is why there are tons of quote from the OT in the NT.

 

[Iceforge]

Now concerning egypt, let me ask you a question. If the Bible wouldn't speak of "hardening the pharao's heart", do you think an Egyptian pharao would let go more than 300.000 slaves? I think the answer is quite obvious =)

Well, it is obvious seen from the bible stories point of view, but if we take a look at reality, it is quite likely he wouldn't have minded it so much if his advisors had come to tell him that the slaves was leaving.
Simple reasons: He didn't have any.
Many new findings indicate that the pyramids of the pharao's was not built through the use of slave labour, but through normal labour by paid individuals, who was trained to build them.
Not proven yet, but a lot of findings indicating that to be true.
Thats if one is being controversial through, as some of the other theories derived from the new findings is not that there was no slaves, but rather that the slaves was being instructed and taught by paid professionals.

Oh, and about the bible being consistent: While we could argue back and forth about if it was consistent or contradicting itself, you did yourself mention one reason why it is consistent in the extend that it is: It was put together of the selected pieces by a council. So surely the council picked those that they liked which supported/was consistent with each other.

 

[rynnor]

The God of the old testament is exactly the same as the god of the new testament, which is why there are tons of quote from the OT in the NT.

Are we reading the same book here?

The vengefull God of the Old testament 'An eye for an eye' v the pacifist god of the new testament 'turn the other cheek' etc. - if you can reconcile those two personalities as a single being then you really arent thinking about it.

The old testament was assembled by nicking bits from other older religions - see here for lots of interesting correspondences - Egyptian & Old Testament Scriptural Correspondences

Half the Ten commandments were nicked from the Egyptian book of the dead...

 

[Laddey]

5 more posts til 300...

Lets see if we can just STOP posting, no more posts after this thread. Lets see if we can stop before 300!

 

[rynnor]

Contrary to you I see the Bible as very consistant book, considering how many people over how many years wrote it. Yes, it was ASSEMBLED by a council, but they didn't write it.

Your thinking of the new testament - that was assembled by a council a few hundred years after the events they portray. The old testament was already knocking around by then.

Its interesting to think of what was in the scriptures they rejected.

 

[liloe]

Well, it is obvious seen from the bible stories point of view, but if we take a look at reality, it is quite likely he wouldn't have minded it so much if his advisors had come to tell him that the slaves was leaving.
Simple reasons: He didn't have any.
Many new findings indicate that the pyramids of the pharao's was not built through the use of slave labour, but through normal labour by paid individuals, who was trained to build them.
Not proven yet, but a lot of findings indicating that to be true.
Thats if one is being controversial through, as some of the other theories derived from the new findings is not that there was no slaves, but rather that the slaves was being instructed and taught by paid professionals.

Sadly our knowledge about pyramid building is very limited, as it's a very interesting topic.

Oh, and about the bible being consistent: While we could argue back and forth about if it was consistent or contradicting itself, you did yourself mention one reason why it is consistent in the extend that it is: It was put together of the selected pieces by a council. So surely the council picked those that they liked which supported/was consistent with each other.

I agree that the argument would be long. Yes, the Bible was put together by a council, but there is another interesting thing. I'm at university atm, so I don't have the possibilities to check that in detail, so read with care =) The council that assembled the Bible was a denomination of the catholic church and they didn't put in everything they had. The catholic church also uses the remaining things though, which aren't consistant at all - known as the apocryphes. Now as I said, handle with care, I'm not an expert on apocryphs.

But, even though everything was put together by a denomination of humans, I still believe that it is very unlikely that so many authors write about exactly the same thing and even the same things, while being consistent.

Bible science IS a controverse subject, I don't deny that, but the biblical texts weren't made up in the last millenium =)

 

[dub]

I am pretty sure that Chronictank made some nice posts explaining the Muslim point of view on "creationism" as you guys call it. I cant find the link now (stuck at work and loads to do today unlike yesterday) to it but i am sure he will be kind enough to provide the link at some point in this discussion.

i got no doubt that there are plenty of links to people explaining the muslim or christian or extraterrestial side of creationism , i asked for articles in peer rewieved publications thou , not what random joe or ibrahim or xorglub wants us to believe

 

[tierk]

i got no doubt that there are plenty of links to people explaining the muslim or christian or extraterrestial side of creationism , i asked for articles in peer rewieved publications thou , not what random joe or ibrahim or xorglub wants us to believe

Laddey 300 for you !!!!

I think it is pretty clear that you are a person (and you are not alone) that will not believe even if i was to rain mana from the sky......