Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Is the fact that you're a whiny douchebag who can't shut up or take a hint enough?

This thread would be (and, in fact, was) a better place without you.

Do your part to make it better.

I'm not going to leave this thread just because you have a difference of opinion with me. And I'm failing to see how what I'm saying is any different than anyone else here.

Everyone else has a freaking point to make, You make a shitty point, you back it up with shitty..or I mean nothing, and then every time someone shoots down one of your arguments with a decent valid point, you just say that their argument sucks, and then keep on going with your shit. This is an endless argument.

Infarcer, you're a mirror covered in rhinestones and shaped like a heart, in which a fat gothic girl uses to apply her cakey make-up.

She also uses you to examine her vagina.

Your face has never been cleaned before.

Originally Posted by GameInfarcer

I'm not going to leave this thread just because you have a difference of opinion with me.

You are, however, going to leave this thread because I'm kicking you out of it.

Without GayInfarcer we wouldn't get any more of these awesome Lurker TrollBites™ though.

This is why I love Gamingforce.

This is why I try to avoid threads having anything to do with religion. It just has no place on the internet. Why? Because everyone thinks they are right and the other is wrong. Rarely, you will have someone who is willing to listen and change their mind or adapt or ever understand. But most people are ignorant, impatient, and putting more effort into proving how you are a moron instead proving their own point against your own.

I mean, debates go nowhere with religion. 9 times out of 10 two people will disagree on something and bicker about their views back and forth in a never ending cycle of stupidity cause neither one can say "yeah thats kewl." and move on with their lives.

Quote:

This is why I try to avoid threads having anything to do with religion. It just has no place on the internet. Why? Because everyone thinks they are right and the other is wrong. Rarely, you will have someone who is willing to listen and change their mind or adapt or ever understand. But most people are ignorant, impatient, and putting more effort into proving how you are a moron instead proving their own point against your own.

Isn't this usually the case in religious discussion, on or off the internets?

Oh man, here I was missing the debate ; ; To backtrack a little...

Originally Posted by Pangalin

And if you have a firm belief in the nonexistence of this entity, neither provable nor disprovable? That's also faith. You purport, as does the theist, to know the unknowable: an essentially spiritual behavior.

It's a common claim to say atheists use faith. And indeed, if they believe that they are 100% sure of the truth, they must be using faith in some way to form the basis for their rationality. However, I'd like to think most atheists are 99.9% sure there are no gods. Sure, there could be a miniscule chance that we're wrong, but is it something to keep me up at night? No. Even agnostics don't worry about invisible fairies living in their garden.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Don't kid yourself about religious wars. There has never been a war about religion, it is only used as justification or propaganda. Wars are fought over land, money, or the balance of power. That's it.

But see, that's the key. Imagine convincing a country to go to war without faith-based justification.

"We shall invade this country and kill its inhabitants!"
"Why? Are they dumber than us? Is our race superior? Our religion? Is our God better?"
"No. They're basically our equals. It's actually because we want their land so we can get rich and powerful, and the people living there would fight for it so we have to kill them too."

How many followers do you think that would win over to begin a war? A serious argument can be made that without faith-based justification, battles over land money and power would fizzle out much quicker or never even occur. What reason would you have for attacking your fellow man if you actually thought he was as equally deserving as you?

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Religion is necessary despite anything said by anyone. At the very least, it keeps the masses from outright depression, etc. by giving them something to believe in.

I believe you meant to say "by giving them something imaginary to believe in." I don't believe it's necessary to believe in the imaginary. Relief from depression need not be discovered in a fairy tale. There are much healthier alternatives.

As Christopher Hitchens would ask, you are to name a moral action or proposition by the religious that could not be made by an unbeliever. That is, if you need a religious reason to do what you ought to do in the interest of our species anyway, it seems to be at best superfluous, and at worst, slightly suspect. Why would you need a religious reason? Is it proselytization for a church? Or is it the expectation for a divine reward? Very often it is the case for both. As you will know the moral secularists who go out of their way to help their fellow man cannot be accused of this. Religion therefore only manages to pollute the integrity of our ethics and morality. Furthermore, religion is a complete misuse of ethics. Who in their right mind would suggest that praying to a foreign god or picking up sticks on the Sabbath is morally problematic? Yet this is precisely what is seemingly believed by many Americans who want the[*]10 commandments codified. Only on theological assumptions could a whole nation be so worried about homosexuality as though it were the great moral debate of our time while the world is visited upon by real human suffering and animal suffering. To get an idea of a classic theocracy, if you are a woman in Iran who is found guilty of a capital offence but are a virgin, you may not be sentenced to death under the law because Islam does not permit the execution of virgins. But you may be raped by the revolutionary guards in the prison so that you are no longer a virgin and then executed. This gives you an idea of the arrogance of what people think they are allowed to do when they have divine permission.

Steven Weinberg was rather accurate when he said; in a morally normal universe people of good intent will do the best they can while evil people will do as wicked as possible. But if you want good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Who would, when they saw a newborn arriving in the world, think it was necessary to start hacking away at the child's genitals with a sharp knife or stone? What moral person would do this if it wasn’t divinely warranted? If you truly believe our morality is original to the bible, you have had your ethical intuitions blinded by religious dogma.

Sam Harris pointed out, even if we knew one of our religions were true, every believer should expect damnation purely on a scale of probability. This should give pause to the religious when they make their metaphysical claims about the nature of the universe–though it rarely does. An atheist is simply someone who has read the bible, considered its claims, and rejected them on insufficient evidence. What dogma have any of us embraced to reject the thousands of dead gods that lie beneath the mass grave called mythology? What church does anyone attend once a week to be reminded that Zeus and Osiris and Thor are merely fictional characters? It’s not like someone of the fourth century conclusively proved the existence of the biblical god and meanwhile proved Zeus to be merely lore.

During the recent presidential candidate debate, when asked if anyone rejects evolution, three arms were raised. This should worry us all. These are people looking for the highest power in the land who clearly want a theocratic America. This is precisely why we need to continue the debate about religion. The religious are no longer contempt and they really mean it this time when they talk about the messiah. This is now a race between armageddon and the preservation of civilization.

[*]Even most fundamentalist Christians who claim to take God at his word cannot possibly take him seriously. If Americans really thought the 10 commandments and divine law ought to be established and used in court, every American Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and everyone else not Christian should be put to the sword. All the corporates, businesses and shop owners who remain open on Sundays and keep the economy going should be stoned to death. If you write a book called god is not Great or The End of Faith you should be stoned to death. If your child lies about having ate the last chocolate chip cookie you stone him to death. If your girlfriend is wearing a necklace with an odd symbol or ornament attached you stone her to death. If someone utters Jesus or Goddamnit after they spill their Krispy Kream Koffee you stone them to death. If your child talks back to you, you stone her to death. If it turns out your wife is not a virgin on your wedding day, you take her to her father's doorstep and stone her to death. If Americans practiced divine law the killing would never stop. Not a single person, not hugely derranged, would willingly want to live in this kind of a society.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Isn't this usually the case in religious discussion, on or off the internets?

You must not be speaking with the correct people. Of course, if your surroundings are filled with people that have, say, JackyBoy's depth of theological understanding, I can understand your feelings of resignation.

Still, some people in the topic (on both sides) know the subject they're debating. Surely, you have some respect for them?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

An atheist is simply someone who has read the bible, considered its claims, and rejected them on insufficient evidence.

I would say that is the definition of a non-Christian. I would define an atheist as anybody who understands what 'burden of proof' and 'evidence' means.

JackyBoy,

Why the emphasis on religion as purely a moral rule? If you consider the increased quality of life that so many people enjoy do to a strong religious foundation, it hardly seems as superfluous as you make it out to be. Similarly, a parent does not solely exist to teach children what they are and are not allowed. There is the entire development of self to consider.

Granted, one might argue that people could become just as actualized through a secular approach, but why shut out one approach in favor of another when both suffer from the same short-comings?

You worry about irrational fundamentalism and I agree completely with that. However, I don't think the proper way to address it is to reject the superset of religion itself.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I would define an atheist as anybody who understands what 'burden of proof' and 'evidence' means.

Not particularly. Atheists put forth the idea that God does not exist. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Not particularly. Atheists put forth the idea that God does not exist. Where is the evidence for this assertion?

Atheists say that there is no evidence for a god, just as there is no evidence for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Russel's teapot, and so if there is no evidence for a thing then it shouldn't be assumed that the thing exists.

Isn't there equal evidence towards the nonexistence of something outside the universe as evidence towards the existence of something outside the universe?

I think you're forgetting a little bit of what seems to be human nature to have faith in thins that don't seem probable. It's the whole reason a character like Spock was so novel and alien.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Isn't there equal evidence towards the nonexistence of something outside the universe as evidence towards the existence of something outside the universe?

What evidence is this?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I think you're forgetting a little bit of what seems to be human nature to have faith in thins that don't seem probable. It's the whole reason a character like Spock was so novel and alien.

I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with my argument, could be so kind as to explain.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

What evidence is this?

None for both.

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with my argument, could be so kind as to explain.

It goes back to an earlier post you made: "I would say that is the definition of a non-Christian. I would define an atheist as anybody who understands what 'burden of proof' and 'evidence' means." I'd just say an atheist is someone who has faith in a different concept than typical religious people.