| Sergei. 05.04.2007 16:53 |
This is sort of a "branch" off of the evolution thread... gave me an idea anyway. I was thinking about religion and god and the bible. I'm not sure whether I believe in god or not :/ I mean, there's the religious and logical theory for everything... the creation of people and the universe, mainly... but I find myself believing The Big Bang Theory and Evolution more than "God created everything in 7 days." When you think about it, almost everything that has to do with science contradicts religion. I guess that's why the Catholic church hated scientists a long time ago. But anyways, I always hear all sorts of stuff about how "God makes miracles happen" and "Pray to god and angels will help you." But the thing is, we prayed all the time when my great aunt had cancer and she died. And if god can make such miracles happen, why are millions of kids in Africa dying of disease and starvation? And little kids and babies being born with birth defects and getting cancer?? Sorry if it sounds like I'm ranting. They're just some "burning questions" I've always had. And you can't ask them at church because all the people will say you're crazy and going to go to hell for questioning god's existance. I just started this to see what anyone else thinks about religion. That's it... |
| KillerQueen840 05.04.2007 16:58 |
I think this thread might open a huge can of worms, lol. Well, a little of my input... I don't think science and religion really contradict so much. Someone once explained that they can go together, "Science tells you how, Religion tells you why." And the whole seven days thing....I just don't take it literally. Who's to say that a day meant what we know to be a 24 hour cycle? I think a lot of stuff in the Bible can be up for loose interpretation. And with death and suffering and prayers not being answered...I dunno. It's hard, but it happens. I think whatever happens, probably happens for a reason, even if we cannot understand it. |
| Carol! the Musical 05.04.2007 17:06 |
<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: And the whole seven days thing....I just don't take it literally. Who's to say that a day meant what we know to be a 24 hour cycle?Ichhh, that's really smart! I think I'm going to borrow this argument for later.. :00 |
| magicalfreddiemercury 05.04.2007 17:19 |
<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>A scientist wrote: I was thinking about religion and god and the bible. I'm not sure whether I believe in god or not :/Buy Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion". Read it carefully cover to cover. When you finish, I doubt you'll question whether you believe in god. |
| user name 05.04.2007 17:49 |
I figured a belief in God is totally subjective...like, if one person picks one way or another to believe, it'd be difficult to convince him otherwise. I mean, I suppose I can see how it's totally plausible for one to believe that a god created all the natural principles we humans understand. |
| The Real Wizard 05.04.2007 18:17 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I mean, I suppose I can see how it's totally plausible for one to believe that a god created all the natural principles we humans understand.But what's the point of wondering where such things originated if we'll never know, especially if there is no tangible way to put any of these philosophical theories to the test? Philosophy is important for understanding your current existence, and can propel you into the future. The point is that we can think about these things... not "when did the thinking begin?". It's irrelevant, and an absolute waste of time, in my opinion. <font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>A scientist wrote: They're just some "burning questions" I've always had. And you can't ask them at church because all the people will say you're crazy and going to go to hell for questioning god's existance.Those are called "fear tactics". They can only affect you if you let them. And it seems you've conquered that. Good job. Spread the good word. |
| FriedChicken 05.04.2007 18:30 |
Evolution is not a matter of beliving. It is proven. You also don't have to believe the Earth isn't the middle of the universe or that it is flat. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 05.04.2007 19:02 |
I hate to contradict Chicken on this one, but evolution is NOT proven. Neither, for that matter, is gravity. Nothing in science is proven...nothing is an absolute truth. Everything in theory. And the reason it is that way is to make sure that false beliefs don't develope. The harder you make it to prove something always true, the harder you test it, the more you understand it. That's why nothing in science is proven. Now, granted that gravity and evolution are still technically theories, but they are mainstream, accepted by anyone with a brian theories. They will never be truths, because we can't ever know what is going to come along in the future. There may come a time when we can prove the theory of gravity wrong....we never know. But we accept gravity and evolution as truths because they have been proven in 99.9999 percent of cases, and don't look likely to be disproven in the future. But that doesn't mean they can't be...semantics matter. That being said...religion is a personal decision...one that I decided on a long time ago. I think that religion is a tool of social control, and can be used as a tool of political control as well. Don't get me wrong...religion has been responsible for great works of art and beautiful music and such...but it's also been responsible for great evil in the world, the very evil it purports to be against. Personally, I think that if there is a God, and I'm not sure on that one at all, I think the whole "Why are their different religions in the world" thing may be a test to see if humans can transcend differences and get along together peacefully...and we've seen how wonderfully well that has worked out. For my own mind...I don't see the point in wasting my time worrying about what's going to happen to me when I die. I really don't care. You are dead...that's the certainty. What happens after that, I honestly don't care all that much. I think most of the afterlife theories are a result of the human mind's need to comfort ourselves with "They are in a better place" or need for justice if justice can't be served in this world "They will be punished in hell". It's a coping device, nothing more. The way that I look at it, we only have a short time on the planet; a short time to be alive. I personally don't want to spend it worrying about an afterlife that may or may not exist...I'd rather live life that I know to be real while I can. Does this make me evil? According to the religious zelots, yeah. But, I honestly couldn't give a crap what they think. Let them have their religion, and they will die without ever having truly lived. I personally have bigger things to do and better things to worry about than "Divine judgement in the afterlife." You go your way...and I'll go mine. We can co-exist, as long as both of us respect the fact that we disagree. Have your religion, that's fine with me...but don't shove it down my throat. I'll have my beliefs, and I won't shove them down yours. |
| user name 05.04.2007 21:03 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Oh, I left out a sentence I had previously had in my post that went something along the lines of, "I don't really bother thinking about such things, because it's all quite irrelevant. You'll never know what you'll never know, so there's no use trying to know it."<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I mean, I suppose I can see how it's totally plausible for one to believe that a god created all the natural principles we humans understand.But what's the point of wondering where such things originated if we'll never know, especially if there is no tangible way to put any of these philosophical theories to the test? Philosophy is important for understanding your current existence, and can propel you into the future. The point is that we can think about these things... not "when did the thinking begin?". It's irrelevant, and an absolute waste of time, in my opinion. Like I always say, I'd be an agnostic, but that implies I actually put some thought into it. |
| FriedChicken 05.04.2007 21:44 |
Evolution HAS been proven. I seriously can't believe intelligent people believe in a god. Especially people who believe in god and evolution and the big bang. How on earth can you believe in a god that just pushed the first dominoblock and watched what happened. Cause that is what you believe in. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 05.04.2007 21:59 |
Evolution has been proven...in as far as we know how to prove it now. My point was that science never says anything is a law unless we can say for certain that nothing in the future could over-turn what has been "proven", ergo nothing is truly "proven" because we don't know what the future holds. I do believe in evolution, but it's a matter of semantics here. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 05.04.2007 22:05 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Evolution has been proven...in as far as we know how to prove it now.And that's the key difference between science and religion, isn't it? Science is open to future discoveries while religion literally fights to stay as it was for ages without allowance for growth or new intelligence. |
| Maz 05.04.2007 22:48 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: religion literally fights to stay as it was for ages without allowance for growth or new intelligence.link Religion is capable of growth and exciting new directions, as shown in the link above, but it's often those who stress strict dogma that shout the loudest. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 05.04.2007 23:06 |
Zeni wrote:While I understand your point, I see this as a way of maintaining the base religion while adding contemporary views.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: religion literally fights to stay as it was for ages without allowance for growth or new intelligence.link Religion is capable of growth and exciting new directions, as shown in the link above, but it's often those who stress strict dogma that shout the loudest. From link "The movement that came to be called "Liberation Theology" began with the awareness that it is blasphemous to care for people's souls while ignoring their needs for food, shelter and human dignity. As Jesus participated in the suffering of the poor, and proclaimed to them the good news of justice and freedom, so must today's church engage in the struggle for justice in this world." Yes, that and more means it's changed, but not in the way that a scientific 'conclusion' will change with new evidence. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 05.04.2007 23:08 |
Sorry, double post. |
| user name 05.04.2007 23:08 |
People say, "I believe in God," or "I believe in evolution," but I personally don't like to "believe" in anything. By definition, believing is unfounded. I will only go so far as to "assume something is true, for a specific purpose." To me, that's personally what I see as the reasonable thing to do. Never have full confidence in anything, no matter what. Edit: Sometimes even science is founded on uncertain beliefs. Take the global warming issue for example. Lots of people (scientists) make opinions on that without objective evidence. It's like a new religion. |
| deleted user 05.04.2007 23:59 |
Well, now that my brains are adequately fried, I'd like to state an opinion. I am pretty much Agnostic right now. Maybe Theistic. I belive that there can never be any proof of a God, but that does not deny a God's exsistence. My blog has been about religion ALOT recently. I agree with CMUHistoryGirl, in that we should just live for our lives and be good people without worrying about the whole Heaven/Hell aspect. And I also agree that nothing has been proven, and everyone who says the Evolution Theory is proven is wrong. Although I do belive in Evolution, and I am happy that I was able to learn of it from a young age. I believe that people let religion get WAY too overpowering in their lives. Yes, religion is supposed to be a way of life guidance, but people I know take everything WAY TOO LITERALLY. And I just think that it destroys people when they think that way. In my opinion, once again, it is almost like brainwashing. A Catholic friend recently got angry with me (and still won't talk to me, two days later), because I said someone was my "second God." And that is the type of thing that SHOULD NOT be caused by religion. And I have also noticed that most people just believe what they've been taught, how they've been raised. So I think that something should be done about that. You cannot blame a religious person for believing only what they have known. Thanks for an interesting topic, Cookies!!!! P.S. I just learned something interesting; Tim Curry is an Agnostic! :O |
| john bodega 06.04.2007 00:55 |
I was very open minded about God until yesterday when a religious girl I know pissed me right off. My attitude now is fuck 'im. Fuck Him right in the ear. |
| Maz 06.04.2007 00:59 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Yes, that and more means it's changed, but not in the way that a scientific 'conclusion' will change with new evidence.Though I get your point, I just wanted to point out that that is a very "western" way of thinking. Western thinking, which most of us have been exposed to, assumes a very temporal and linear type of thinking bent on finding scientific conclusions and historical facts. If you want religion to provide scientific-type conclusions and adapt, then it probably won't. But if you look to religion to provide existential conclusions, or truth you can "trust," then I think it can change. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.04.2007 08:47 |
Zeni wrote: If you want religion to provide scientific-type conclusions and adapt, then it probably won't. But if you look to religion to provide existential conclusions, or truth you can "trust," then I think it can change.Thing is, personally, I don't WANT religion. But that's me. To your point, there are those who want and appreciate having a 'truth' they can trust, and modifying that truth to fit the times can only be a good thing, IMO. But it's not happening to the core religion. That remains unchanged. The Catholic church won't soon be pro-choice or gay union. However, sects of Christians might (continue to) branch off to form their own church based on their RC beliefs. This "new" church will be progressive but the mother church will remain steadfast and therefore defy attempts at change. On a separate point, yesterday I received my copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Of course it's not for everyone, but for me it was like a group therapy session. At least the part I skipped to was. Chapter 9: Children, Abuse and the Escape from Religion. In that section, Dawkins reprinted letters he'd received from 'survivors' whose childhood experiences with god and the church were quite terrifying. It was like reading about my own youth. My hatred for religion stems from the nights I spent trying to stay awake long enough to finish praying. I KNEW if I fell asleep before I finished my stack of prayers, then I was sinning. And, of course, all 7 years olds knew what would happen to them and their family if they sinned, didn't they? They'd suffer the tortures of hell. And did you know, there is no way to escape sin? That's what this terrified little child had been told from the beginning. So, there I was, night after night, an impressionable kid (as most kids are) desperately trying to 'convince' god of my sincerity, my remorse, so that my future punishment might not be even worse than what had already been planned for me... and for my children. And yes, the church taught me that as well... the sins of the father, and all that. I couldn't ask my parents to clarify anything because to question it was also to be sinning. In reading a few pages of Chapter 9 in The God Delusion, I found I was not alone in my childhood suffering - or abuse as Dawkins (rightfully) calls it. It's sad to think so many children suffered that and much more, but it's also comforting to know I wasn't alone... and that others have recovered from the abuse. Unfortunately, others are still enduring it. There is no room in my life for the pain of religion. And I've made sure my child will never experience it. As far as I'm concerned, the 'sins of the father' should never be repeated. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.04.2007 09:04 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Edit: Sometimes even science is founded on uncertain beliefs. Take the global warming issue for example. Lots of people (scientists) make opinions on that without objective evidence. It's like a new religion.Not exactly. This belief is based on visual and, yes, scientific, evidence - albeit raw, rather than on stories written decades after the fact. Scientists are not saying humans are the sole cause of global warming, but that we are contributing to it. They are concerend about what the effects natural and unnatural warming will have on the planet - on us. If cutting down emmissions can cut down on the rate the planet warms, surely that's a good thing, no? Maybe it will buy us some time to figure out how to adapt to or slow the natural process. I thought this was an interesting article, you might find it interesting as well... link Sorry for the hijack, Cookies. :) |
| thomasquinn 32989 06.04.2007 09:08 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: Evolution HAS been proven. I seriously can't believe intelligent people believe in a god. Especially people who believe in god and evolution and the big bang. How on earth can you believe in a god that just pushed the first dominoblock and watched what happened. Cause that is what you believe in.No, Niek, evolution is a theory that has not been DISPROVEN. That's how science works. Empiricism is a system that works, so long as you have it work within its own rules. I'll draw a mathematical analogy: our system of maths works, so long as you do not attempt to divide by 0. Is it impossible to divide by 0? No, but the system cannot incorporate it, because we are not exactly sure what 0 means (it is taken from a different system of numbers than 1-9). |
| Sergei. 06.04.2007 10:18 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Sorry for the hijack, Cookies. :)No, this is exactly what I wanted... opinions :P |
| Poo, again 06.04.2007 10:36 |
Isn't God gay? |
| Sergei. 06.04.2007 10:44 |
<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?Can you fuck off? People are trying to have an intelligent discussion here and you always come and screw up threads. You used to be a cool person on here and now you're one of the biggest spamming dicks on Queenzone. |
| Mr.Jingles 06.04.2007 10:54 |
<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?God is either gay or a woman. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.04.2007 10:55 |
Brilliant observation, Magicalfreddiemercury! Religion can change...but I'll admit it's slow to do so...always has been, and probably always will be. Actually, it will probably be slower to change now as people cling to religion as something that is a constant in their lives, in these fast-changing times, religion is always there, like a favorite blanket or teddy bear. It can change, but it tends to throw those who live by it into an uproar, because they don't like change. Any change can be corrupting...change that isn't proven to come from God...(Because the Pope has a hotline to God, so he can make changes any time he wants) I wouldn't classify myself as an atheist, though I am interested to read Dawkin's book. There is such a thing as being virulantly relgious, and that includes being virulently atheist. Virulent is the problem that I have...I hate people who try to shove anything on me. If you want to have your religion, that's fine. But don't shove it on me...and if you want to try and convert me, then present me with the arguements in a logical manner, and listen to what I have to say to refute them without jumping all over me for being "evil" or "a sinner". That does nothing to "win" me over to your POV. BTW Capsar...thanks for that anology with the empricism thing. I was trying to think of one for friedchicken, but my mind is kinda full of intellectual movements in pre-enlightenment Europe and how it was politically applied in France. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.04.2007 10:57 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I take issue with that, Dan.<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?God is either gay or a woman. To quote the brilliant Mr. George Carlin: "I believe that God must be a man because screwed up results like this indicate that maybe he just doesn't give a shit. No woman could or would ever screw things up this badly." |
| Mr.Jingles 06.04.2007 11:00 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Could be... but I agree more with the Carlos Mencia argument.Mr.Jingles wrote:I take issue with that, Dan. To quote the brilliant Mr. George Carlin: "I believe that God must be a man because screwed up results like this indicate that maybe he just doesn't give a shit. No woman could or would ever screw things up this badly."<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?God is either gay or a woman. If God (as a male) had anything to say, he'd say it in a 32 page manual, but instead he had to say it in an entire book of 1000 pages. Only a woman has that much shit to say. |
| deleted user 06.04.2007 11:02 |
<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>A scientist wrote:XDDDDDDD "Ohmy!" XD<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?Can you fuck off? People are trying to have an intelligent discussion here and you always come and screw up threads. You used to be a cool person on here and now you're one of the biggest spamming dicks on Queenzone. |
| Maz 06.04.2007 11:17 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Thing is, personally, I don't WANT religion. But that's me. To your point, there are those who want and appreciate having a 'truth' they can trust, and modifying that truth to fit the times can only be a good thing, IMO. But it's not happening to the core religion. That remains unchanged. The Catholic church won't soon be pro-choice or gay union. However, sects of Christians might (continue to) branch off to form their own church based on their RC beliefs. This "new" church will be progressive but the mother church will remain steadfast and therefore defy attempts at change.I'm not trying to take you to task, MFM, so please don't take my comments the wrong way. I do want to point out one thing, however. I fully understand your comments about the fears of going to hell simply because you might have accidentally said a curse word or had one sip of an alcoholic beverage. I hate it when religion gets so caught up with outward things that it loses focus on inward change. I also think that scientists who spend their time trying to disprove the literal truth of the Bible in order to show religion's mistakes are just as eggheaded as those fundamentalists who try to prove the same literal truth to show its priority. But don't confuse dogma with what religion can provide. I have a lot of issues with the dogma of the church and I agree with many of your sentiments. But I also think that there are a lot of interesting 20th century theologians that have insightful things to say about the changing nature of religion. |
| flash! 28068 06.04.2007 11:18 |
I've done Philosophy. I can safely say I was just as much of an Agnostic before as I was afterwards. This was mainly because we debated and debated with points for and against the existence of God and both sides holding very good arguments! ... This just pulled me from one side to the other until I realized I was better in the middle being an agnostic. I recommend you have a look @ any of Richard Dawkins books and also 'The Puzzle of God' by Peter Vardy. At the end of the day, It's all a matter of interpretation. Some things are unexplainable and can only be accounted for by assuming its from God. However, other things can be explained by a more realistic approach - science. Take a course in philosophy, not only will it blow your mind, but it'll also make you leave everyday with your head buzzing (but also aching with all the thinking) |
| sparrow 21754 06.04.2007 11:45 |
<font color=#00B5D6>Rocky<font size=1>!! wrote: Well, now that my brains are adequately fried, I'd like to state an opinion. I am pretty much Agnostic right now. Maybe Theistic. I belive that there can never be any proof of a God, but that does not deny a God's exsistence. My blog has been about religion ALOT recently. I agree with CMUHistoryGirl, in that we should just live for our lives and be good people without worrying about the whole Heaven/Hell aspect. And I also agree that nothing has been proven, and everyone who says the Evolution Theory is proven is wrong. Although I do belive in Evolution, and I am happy that I was able to learn of it from a young age. I believe that people let religion get WAY too overpowering in their lives. Yes, religion is supposed to be a way of life guidance, but people I know take everything WAY TOO LITERALLY. And I just think that it destroys people when they think that way. In my opinion, once again, it is almost like brainwashing. A Catholic friend recently got angry with me (and still won't talk to me, two days later), because I said someone was my "second God." And that is the type of thing that SHOULD NOT be caused by religion. And I have also noticed that most people just believe what they've been taught, how they've been raised. So I think that something should be done about that. You cannot blame a religious person for believing only what they have known.well said! i believe pretty much the same thing you do, i cant prove a god exists, but i dont doubt there was some being that created everything. to me, it sorta just pieces the puzzle together. and i also agree with CMUhistorygirl...and basically this post XD i dont go to church, but every onces in a while i pray. i believe it helps me, and if i dont ask for too much, my prayers will be granted in one way. if someone dies no matter how much i pray, then i beleive there was a reason for them to die. that includes myself. as for evolution, i can agree with most of it. as it was said in another thread, the bible has been mistranslated thruought the years, and because of a patriarchal society, has deleted some important figures that were female, and i believe it was TQ who raised the question that Jesus may have been female. and also just some other stories and documents were deleted throughout the centuries. decent people use the religious books as a guide, and not a weapon. ...im sorry im rambling. i guess all i really had to say is i agree with you both. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.04.2007 12:11 |
Zeni wrote: I'm not trying to take you to task, MFM, so please don't take my comments the wrong way.I understand and feel the same about my replies to you (and others). Zeni wrote: But don't confuse dogma with what religion can provide. I have a lot of issues with the dogma of the church and I agree with many of your sentiments. But I also think that there are a lot of interesting 20th century theologians that have insightful things to say about the changing nature of religion.I have no doubt there are interesting ideas being brought to the religious table. Some are regressive thoughts, some progressive. But I'm only interested in them as they relate to past and current events. I see no value in supernatural belief on its own. I see no value in praying to that supernatural being. I see no value in the preoccupation the world has with conflicting beliefs. If anything, I see it perpetuating pain and alienation. As to what religion can provide... no matter what I read, hear or see regarding religion and the religious, I do not feel it provides (or has ever provided) anything of value. Perhaps I simply fail to see what you and others see, because, in my opinion, religious belief is false belief. Wasteful belief. Of course, many claim it gives them comfort. Need I say again, that comfort and religion seem worlds apart to me? In fact, they appear to me as opposites. However, if religion indeed provides comfort for some, then fine, what can I say? For me, a simple hug provides comfort and, no matter what, it won't cost me my soul. |
| user name 06.04.2007 13:48 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Ironically, this is the same opinion most children have concerning what they learn in grammar/high school. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the truth could be elusive, or unattainable.Zeni wrote: But don't confuse dogma with what religion can provide. I have a lot of issues with the dogma of the church and I agree with many of your sentiments. But I also think that there are a lot of interesting 20th century theologians that have insightful things to say about the changing nature of religion.I have no doubt there are interesting ideas being brought to the religious table. Some are regressive thoughts, some progressive. But I'm only interested in them as they relate to past and current events. I see no value in supernatural belief on its own. I see no value in praying to that supernatural being. I see no value in the preoccupation the world has with conflicting beliefs. If anything, I see it perpetuating pain and alienation. As to what religion can provide... no matter what I read, hear or see regarding religion and the religious, I do not feel it provides (or has ever provided) anything of value. Perhaps I simply fail to see what you and others see, because, in my opinion, religious belief is false belief. Wasteful belief. Of course, many claim it gives them comfort. Need I say again, that comfort and religion seem worlds apart to me? In fact, they appear to me as opposites. However, if religion indeed provides comfort for some, then fine, what can I say? For me, a simple hug provides comfort and, no matter what, it won't cost me my soul. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.04.2007 14:05 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the truth could be elusive, or unattainable.What truth? |
| Poo, again 06.04.2007 14:31 |
Kween<h6>Indeed... wrote:Oh, the drama!<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>A scientist wrote:XDDDDDDD "Ohmy!" XD<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?Can you fuck off? People are trying to have an intelligent discussion here and you always come and screw up threads. You used to be a cool person on here and now you're one of the biggest spamming dicks on Queenzone. |
| Matias Merçeauroix 06.04.2007 15:00 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:lmaoCMU HistoryGirl wrote:Could be... but I agree more with the Carlos Mencia argument. If God (as a male) had anything to say, he'd say it in a 32 page manual, but instead he had to say it in an entire book of 1000 pages. Only a woman has that much shit to say.Mr.Jingles wrote:I take issue with that, Dan. To quote the brilliant Mr. George Carlin: "I believe that God must be a man because screwed up results like this indicate that maybe he just doesn't give a shit. No woman could or would ever screw things up this badly."<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?God is either gay or a woman. xDDDDDD |
| Sergei. 06.04.2007 15:30 |
<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote:Oh, the vaginas!Kween<h6>Indeed... wrote:Oh, the drama!<font color=teal>Cookies!<h6>A scientist wrote:XDDDDDDD "Ohmy!" XD<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?Can you fuck off? People are trying to have an intelligent discussion here and you always come and screw up threads. You used to be a cool person on here and now you're one of the biggest spamming dicks on Queenzone. |
| Yogurt 06.04.2007 17:04 |
I've heard these questions SO MANY TIMES!!! And don't worry. It doesn't mean your going to hell if you question your belifes. It only means your human and normal. Everyone is curious and its only normal to ask. Who ever says your going to hell just cause your curious to know is...well to me...weird Cause I mean, C'MON! I bet anything they even wondered. |
| The Real Wizard 06.04.2007 17:29 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Like I always say, I'd be an agnostic, but that implies I actually put some thought into it.Ha ha! I prefer to use the word "apathetic". Everyone, check this out: link "Filipinos crucify themselves on Good Friday" Unbelievable... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 06.04.2007 18:01 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:**rolls eyes**CMU HistoryGirl wrote:Could be... but I agree more with the Carlos Mencia argument. If God (as a male) had anything to say, he'd say it in a 32 page manual, but instead he had to say it in an entire book of 1000 pages. Only a woman has that much shit to say.Mr.Jingles wrote:I take issue with that, Dan. To quote the brilliant Mr. George Carlin: "I believe that God must be a man because screwed up results like this indicate that maybe he just doesn't give a shit. No woman could or would ever screw things up this badly."<font color=pink>Account Deleted wrote: Isn't God gay?God is either gay or a woman. Of course.... Clarity, after all, is a bad thing. How did I know you'd bring that one up? **sticks out tongue at Dan** |
| user name 06.04.2007 23:44 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:How useful/useless/beneficial/injurious religion is.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the truth could be elusive, or unattainable.What truth? |
| user name 06.04.2007 23:47 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Everyone, check this out: link "Filipinos crucify themselves on Good Friday" Unbelievable..."The atmosphere was festive, with hawkers selling beer, ice-cream and souvenir whips. Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" blared out from speakers before the penitents approached the crosses." The song is even overplayed at mock crucifixions in the Phillipines. |
| carboengine 07.04.2007 00:23 |
I was raised Wisconsin Synod Lutheran and faithfully went to Sunday School and did the confirmation thing and kept going to church until I graduated from high school when I decided, no more! I never liked it from the get-go. I found it offensive. Especially the baby baptisms wherein at one month old they had to be rescued and given to god or else....??? WHAT could possibly be more innocent and pure than a baby?!!! I never liked the Jesus image hanging on the cross. I thought it looked ghoulish (and, yes, I do know what it is supposed to mean.) And I never liked reciting the Nicene Creed where we were all "sinners," etc. The sermons I heard were all old testament stories which for the life of me I couldn't understand the relevance to the day such as Jonah and the whale. The pews were hard, and I had to keep pinching myself to stay awake, and there was always an elderly woman sitting in front of me who had one of those fox fur collars draped around her shoulders complete with face and open eyes that stared at me. I dabbled in a lot of religions after that, but I never found one that made any sense. My searching gradually faded away, and I like that. I had, shall we call it, a spiritual experience on a summer Saturday around 6 pm in 1983. It happened once and never again. I was sitting in a chair when I started noticing my breathing changing. It was getting slower, and slower, and slower still but not deeper or distressed. It was like it was elongating... and I was calmly observing this as it had never happened to me before. Finally I stopped breathing altogether, again without distress, and thoughts or revelations came into my mind. "Oh, I see. We don't have to breathe." "Oh, I see. We don't have to eat or drink." Oh, I see. We are spirits that take on bodies." It was revealed, "There is nothing to fear." My mind rather argued about that as I thought of all of the dangerous situations you could get into if you went out and about with no awareness of being careful, and it was revealed again, "There is nothing to fear." A feeling of absolute peace and joy became me. I was in harmony with the universe. I was in harmony with all of creation. In harmony there is no one or no thing greater or lesser than you. If you could take the absolute best thing that ever happened to you (or me) and multiply it by a bazillion, gazillion times, it would not even remotely compare to the extraordinariness of the harmony. The harmony was incompatible with wars and hate and fighting, and I knew the harmony was not present in humans as I knew or read about them. It was, "The peace that passeth all understanding." (Which is a quote from the bible.) Even though this state of mind or being was something absolutely unfamiliar to me, it felt natural, and while I was in it, I thought of nothing else - that this is the way it is supposed to be. I was in this state for about 45 minutes (not breathing), and it gradually and gently went away over the next day or so, and I was dumped back into the mortal human experience, breathing and all. My questions to "IT" afterwards were, and still are, "Why did you come? Why did you leave? How do I get you back?!!!" There was a sacrificial kind of component to it as well as in if it had to be, I would forego the bliss for all eternity if the rest of the world could just have it. A while later I came across two books that referred to this same kind of experience. Pathways Through to Space, and the other was Cosmic Consciousness written by a man with the last name of Buche who experienced the bliss for about 30 seconds only, and ever after went on a search to discover who else had done so as well. No, I was not taking any drugs. The Bliss / The Harmony was the realist thing that ever happened to me. |
| user name 07.04.2007 00:49 |
Drugs are not the only causes of altered states of consciousness... They sure help, though. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.04.2007 08:32 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Perhaps it's not so much a truth as in "I WILL use math in my lifetime", but a hope or wishful thinking as in "I've followed the rules of god, I hope to reach heaven and have it be as I've been told."magicalfreddiemercury wrote:How useful/useless/beneficial/injurious religion is.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the truth could be elusive, or unattainable.What truth? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.04.2007 09:43 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Everyone, check this out: link "Filipinos crucify themselves on Good Friday" Unbelievable...Absolutely unbelievable. And to think, as a kid I thought fasting on good Friday was harsh. Some people are just sick. The whole article threw me, but I had to read this line twice - "Some foreigners have previously been crucified including a Belgian nun and a Japanese man, who later allowed footage of his ordeal to be used in a pornographic film." Um... what?! |
| john bodega 07.04.2007 11:14 |
"Some foreigners have previously been crucified including a Belgian nun and a Japanese man, who later allowed footage of his ordeal to be used in a pornographic film." You can't buy comedy like that. |
| Poo, again 07.04.2007 13:32 |
Every religion has it's extremes. But this is just fucked up. |
| user name 07.04.2007 13:48 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Not necessarily that, but rather religion could inspire one to partake in charity, help others, etc.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Perhaps it's not so much a truth as in "I WILL use math in my lifetime", but a hope or wishful thinking as in "I've followed the rules of god, I hope to reach heaven and have it be as I've been told."magicalfreddiemercury wrote:How useful/useless/beneficial/injurious religion is.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the truth could be elusive, or unattainable.What truth? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.04.2007 14:35 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Not necessarily that, but rather religion could inspire one to partake in charity, help others, etc.Please tell me you don't think a person needs religion in order to partake in charity drives or to assist others. Speaking for myself, I belong to, volunteer and donate to a multitude of charities and organizations meant to help those in need and never once have I been connected to a religious charity. In fact, I avoid them at all costs. I think the organization of charitable groups, the bringing together of people - whether it be troubled youth or lonely elderly folk - can, is and will continue to be done without connection to religion. Yes, there are religious groups doing it as well, but I cannot be convinced that religion itself is what prompts people to partake. And what I was speaking to originally, was what religion can provide - the religious beliefs, the prayer, the personal gain or whatever from religion itself. Any group a person belongs to will have an impact on their life - a church, a street gang, a rock band. It doesn't matter. The point is – again in my opinion – that RELIGION for religion's sake does not provide anything of value. If anything, it smothers free thought and frightens people into doing good rather than convincing them to do good for goodness' sake. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.04.2007 14:46 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:...and that's the aspect of religion that you don't see in the news.magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Not necessarily that, but rather religion could inspire one to partake in charity, help others, etc.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Perhaps it's not so much a truth as in "I WILL use math in my lifetime", but a hope or wishful thinking as in "I've followed the rules of god, I hope to reach heaven and have it be as I've been told."magicalfreddiemercury wrote:How useful/useless/beneficial/injurious religion is.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the truth could be elusive, or unattainable.What truth? Controversy, violence, intolerance, hatred, and extremism sell far more headlines than compassion, love, and kindness. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.04.2007 15:07 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: ...and that's the aspect of religion that you don't see in the news.But it is not exclusive to religion. If religion did not exist, would no one care about anyone else? Would there not be organizations built to help those in need? What about those of us happily helping without religion? We're not doing it so we'll be rewarded in some afterlife. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do in the here and now... and helping others feels pretty good, too. This is simply not a strong argument for the value of religion. Though, IMO, no argument is strong enough. |
| Mr.Jingles 07.04.2007 15:38 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:You're saying that religion doesn't bring any value, but if it does indeed encourgauge kindness and why shouldn't that be recognized? There are aspects of all kinds of religions that make people close minded, but not always. Many people have been able to find a lot of values like compassion, tolerance, and peace thanks to religion. Sure, many people become the complete opossite of that, but it's a known fact that a good number of people have become better human beings thanks to religion.Mr.Jingles wrote: ...and that's the aspect of religion that you don't see in the news.But it is not exclusive to religion. If religion did not exist, would no one care about anyone else? Would there not be organizations built to help those in need? What about those of us happily helping without religion? We're not doing it so we'll be rewarded in some afterlife. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do in the here and now... and helping others feels pretty good, too. This is simply not a strong argument for the value of religion. Though, IMO, no argument is strong enough. I agree with you that religion is NOT strictly necessary to achieve a human integrity, but at least recognize that sometimes it does help in a way. Just don't make generalizations by saying that religion brings nothing good. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 07.04.2007 16:20 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: I agree with you that religion is NOT strictly necessary to achieve a human integrity, but at least recognize that sometimes it does help in a way. Just don't make generalizations by saying that religion brings nothing good.What I recognize is how an organization - religious or not - can influence the way people think and act. Yes, religious groups have helped people, but I do not believe it is the religion that is helping. If it were, then ALL christians would participate. All jews, all muslims, etc. Who you are inside determines how good you'll be and how far you'll go to show it - whether you're a jew, roman catholic, atheist or something else. Do you think if you were not a (somewhat) religious man, you would be less just, less caring? Is it your religion that makes you behave as you do on a daily basis? If you are christian, but were raised a jew or an atheist, would you not care about your fellow man? Would you not have been moved by the video of otters holding hands? :-) We're humans and so we share the same basic needs and goals no matter what - if any - religion we follow. I'm sorry if you feel slighted or insulted by my view, that's not my intention, but I cannot see how religion itself provides anything worth the pain, fear and non-inclusive beliefs - among other things - one must hold in order to follow it. |
| carboengine 07.04.2007 19:08 |
My mother was a church-goer all of her life, and she developed a lot of friendships through that. I rather viewed it thus also as a social club bringing people in a neighborhood together (a large geographic neighborhood.) For decades women could not hold an office in her church or vote on anything. This steamed my mother who was usually placid, and she would point out that a lot of women, especially widows, gave a lot of money to the church, and why shouldn't they have a say? Something happened in her Synod, and many of the members didn't like it, so they didn't go with the group that split off, and they just became their own Synod of one. The women finally got to vote and hold office, but not being part of the larger organization put the pastors' retirements in financial jeopardy, etc.. The women at her church worked SO HARD in my view. They were always having a bake sale, or a craft sale, and every other year they put on this eleborate fundraising tea and even brought their own good dishes in for it, and tableclothes, and centerpieces, and candles, etc. She loved it. Of course her brand of religion believed that only Christians would be saved and go to heaven. I used to ask her, "What about native Americans? What about people who were born before Jesus was around?" She didn't have an answer for that and never questioned it. She believed whatever they told her. My mother had six children and was severely ill through every pregnancy. I was shocked, and I do mean SHOCKED, when she said she believed in abortion, which is a view her church didn't have. SHOCKED! Every now and then I find myself back in a church going to a niece or nephew's baptism, or weddings, or funerals. There is something comforting about rituals and pageantry. I had a sister who died last June, another sister died this past December, my best friend died suddently in November, my old high school classmate and later roommate died in December, my chiropractor (age 48) died in January, and Uncle Larry (90 years old) just died two weeks ago. (I am starting to think I am bad luck to be around.) Altogether, it is most confusing. Even though I consider myself atheist, their church services were lovely and personal and honored the departed and brought those who loved them together. There is something to be said for fellowship, and there is lots to be said about the church ladies who volunteer their love working in the kitchens serving funeral lunches. I can appreciate, enjoy, and respect those aspects of their churches I like and believe in, and let the rest fall away. |
| user name 07.04.2007 23:27 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:It's not exclusive to religion, but it does occur because of religion.Mr.Jingles wrote: ...and that's the aspect of religion that you don't see in the news.But it is not exclusive to religion. If religion did not exist, would no one care about anyone else? Would there not be organizations built to help those in need? What about those of us happily helping without religion? We're not doing it so we'll be rewarded in some afterlife. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do in the here and now... and helping others feels pretty good, too. This is simply not a strong argument for the value of religion. Though, IMO, no argument is strong enough. If college didn't exist, there would still be intelligent, capable people - however, to say college should be abolished because of this is kind of absurd. Religion, much like college, is capable of bringing about a lot of good and a lot of bad in a person. What somebody gets out of either depends ENTIRELY upon the person. And saying that the religious only perform good deeds due to a "reward in the afterlife" is certainly not true. It's seems almost offensive, actually (not to me, as I am completely non-religious myself). Also, what we don't realize sometimes, is that religion is actually necessary for a great many people, who would likely not perform psychologically well without it. I'm sure there's a good evolutionary reason why religion is so prevalent and natural in humans. Like Jingles said, and I'll agree - religion is victimized in the media. The media is, in fact, often presenting the truth - however, that truth is not representative of the vast majority of religion, and those who partake in it. Craziness, absurdity, ignorance, and the like, which is often attributed to religion, can be attributed to the human race as a whole. Of this I am certain. The frequency of these characteristics is no higher in the religious populations than it is in the non-religious populations. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 08.04.2007 07:13 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Like Jingles said, and I'll agree - religion is victimized in the media.You had my interest until the above sentence and then it was lost for me. "- religion is victimized..." That actually made me laugh aloud. It's been my personal experience that religion is not victimized but rather it victimizes. Maybe people function better with it, as you said, the same as a battered woman at first 'functions' better with her abusive husband. Followers are told what to do, how to behave, who to accept and who to condemn. Take away their leader, their rules, and they have to start thinking for themselves and justify their behaviors as stemming from their personal choices, not their religion. It's a crutch, an excuse, and the more I think about how it affected my life the more grateful I am to have shaken it off. And as for your religion/college analogy, forgive me, but that is an absurd - to use your word - comparison. College = knowledge. Religion = superstition. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 08.04.2007 08:19 |
carboengine wrote: There is something comforting about rituals and pageantry. ...Even though I consider myself atheist, their church services were lovely and personal and honored the departed and brought those who loved them together. There is something to be said for fellowship, and there is lots to be said about the church ladies who volunteer their love working in the kitchens serving funeral lunches. I can appreciate, enjoy, and respect those aspects of their churches I like and believe in, and let the rest fall away.I understand what you're saying and I've been known to feel the same way, too. But I have to say what you're referring to seems more like belonging, about being part of a community, about sharing common feelings and moods... "Rituals and pageantry." What you're not saying, unless I'm misunderstanding, is that the actual prayers - the meaning behind them, is what gave you comfort. You're not saying that being in the church reminded you that god is watching out for you or... ??? And that's my point. Everyone has said the same basic thing regarding the value of religion. It's the gathering of people that comforts, it's having a place to go, it's being encouraged to do a kindness. But no one has touted the value of the RELIGION, the BELIEF, and that is what I've been trying to get to. THAT is where I say religion has no value. |
| The Real Wizard 08.04.2007 11:17 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Like Jingles said, and I'll agree - religion is victimized in the media.I have to disagree with this one, too. If anything, the media is doing all it can to protect Christianity. Whenever there's an Islamic terrorist, his religion must be mentioned. But what happened in '95 in Oklahoma City? A random act of terror rooted from McVeigh's hatred of the government? No... he was a member of a Christian doomsday cult. It was not in the interest of the American public to know that their precious belief system contributed to things like this bombing, so this information has since been almost completely stifled. Judaism gets all the positive press they need. Regardless of what acts of terrorism Isreal causes (oops, I mean "retaliation"), the US media is inherently on their side. Top example, when they spent weeks completely flattening a couple cities in Lebanon last year. You didn't see many churches campaigning to "help a Lebanese kid", did you? Islam still doesn't have the greatest name in the US mainstream, but it's slowly getting better in Canada. There's a TV show on CBC called "Little Mosque On The Prairie". It certainly is contributing to cultural tolerance of Islam. But in the US, the Bush administration and the media are doing plenty enough to keep people ignorant about the many positives of Islam, as such ignorance will keep people supporting the almighty "war on terror", which has cost over a trillion dollars now. I digress. I'll agree with you and say that the media isn't doing too much to help Islam, but Judaism and Christianity have all the support they need. magicalfreddiemercury wrote: College = knowledge. Religion = superstition.What if someone enrolls at a religious college? :) And for the record... I agree with every word you've said in this topic. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 08.04.2007 13:27 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:They gain knowledge of superstition? :)magicalfreddiemercury wrote: College = knowledge. Religion = superstition.What if someone enrolls at a religious college? :) Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: And for the record... I agree with every word you've said in this topic.Well, thank you kindly, Sir. |
| user name 08.04.2007 17:46 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I understand you must be embittered against your own personal religion, but some of the comparisons you make are quite extreme. Once again, comparing religion to an abusive relationship is offensive not only to the religious, but to those who have actually suffered through abusive relationships.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Like Jingles said, and I'll agree - religion is victimized in the media.You had my interest until the above sentence and then it was lost for me. "- religion is victimized..." That actually made me laugh aloud. It's been my personal experience that religion is not victimized but rather it victimizes. Maybe people function better with it, as you said, the same as a battered woman at first 'functions' better with her abusive husband. Followers are told what to do, how to behave, who to accept and who to condemn. Take away their leader, their rules, and they have to start thinking for themselves and justify their behaviors as stemming from their personal choices, not their religion. It's a crutch, an excuse, and the more I think about how it affected my life the more grateful I am to have shaken it off. And as for your religion/college analogy, forgive me, but that is an absurd - to use your word - comparison. College = knowledge. Religion = superstition. Generally, followers of a religion are never told what to do, how to behave, who to accept and who to condemn. The vast majority of religious institutions don't even touch upon anything controversial. Now, obviously, some do, but there's no use blame the many for the deeds of a few. If anything, religion often merely promotes peace, love, kindness, and charity, and it usually doesn't denounce anything. You may very well have an example where religion does the exact opposite of what I have stated, but for each of those, there are certainly dozens that are parallel to my description. Religion usually doesn't have a "leader" or "rules." Religion has people such as priests and rabbis, who facilitate meetings and such, but surely nobody depends on them for guidance - but they are there to offer it (much like a financial advisor - you don't necessarily depend on one to make every financial decision for you). In many cases, those who are not even members of the religion are welcome in the community. So much for steadfast rules. Finally, I believe you misunderstood my analogy. I wasn't referring to the material that a college teaches, but rather the usefulness of it vs. religion. I mean, one could get a philosophy degree, and that would be equally as impractical as religion. However, a person could benefit (or disbenefit) from the experience of either. I think you're being horribly one-sided, and it's rather dangerous to be so closed-minded about certian issues as this. When one person starts deciding what's best for another person, it leads only to ignorance. Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically. |
| The Real Wizard 08.04.2007 21:33 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.I disagree. Religion is the top of the list of things that keep people ignorant, because it is the only thing in the world can offer "concrete" answers to the ultimate questions, and threaten damnation for questioning its accuracy. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 08.04.2007 22:00 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I understand you must be embittered against your own personal religion, but some of the comparisons you make are quite extreme. Once again, comparing religion to an abusive relationship is offensive not only to the religious, but to those who have actually suffered through abusive relationships. Generally, followers of a religion are never told what to do, how to behave, who to accept and who to condemn. The vast majority of religious institutions don't even touch upon anything controversial. Now, obviously, some do, but there's no use blame the many for the deeds of a few. If anything, religion often merely promotes peace, love, kindness, and charity, and it usually doesn't denounce anything. You may very well have an example where religion does the exact opposite of what I have stated, but for each of those, there are certainly dozens that are parallel to my description. Religion usually doesn't have a "leader" or "rules." Religion has people such as priests and rabbis, who facilitate meetings and such, but surely nobody depends on them for guidance - but they are there to offer it (much like a financial advisor - you don't necessarily depend on one to make every financial decision for you). In many cases, those who are not even members of the religion are welcome in the community. So much for steadfast rules. Finally, I believe you misunderstood my analogy. I wasn't referring to the material that a college teaches, but rather the usefulness of it vs. religion. I mean, one could get a philosophy degree, and that would be equally as impractical as religion. However, a person could benefit (or disbenefit) from the experience of either. I think you're being horribly one-sided, and it's rather dangerous to be so closed-minded about certian issues as this. When one person starts deciding what's best for another person, it leads only to ignorance. Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.Okay, let's clarify a few things - I've never said anywhere that religion should be eliminated or that eliminating it would rid the world of ignorance. What I said - repeatedly - was that in my opinion religious belief does not provide anything of value. So far, that has not been contradicted. As for being one-sided, a person's personal opinion usually is. That's what a discussion or debate is about. Bringing opposing sides together. I've asked for input from others about what religious belief adds to life and have received replies that refer to the institution of religion, NOT religion itself. About religion not having rules or a leader... I'm not sure what religion you're thinking of, but all the religions I'm aware of have rules, and the leader is 'god', and what 'he' will do to you come judgment day weighs heavily on the religious mind. And finally - you have hit a hot button for me. #1 - If the religious see my comparison of religion to an abusive relationship as offensive, then let them show me how it differs. #2 - Unless you have been involved in an abusive relationship, do not speak to me about what a survivor of that would think of my comparison. I am a survivor and I know how it compares. I also know how religion amplified my plight. "Till death do us part" seemed to mean MY death, and damn if my religious family didn't think the vows I made in front of their god weren't more important than my life. It took nearly 10 years of beatings, terror and broken spirit before I somehow clawed my way out of that situation. Alone. Good god-fearing Italian/Catholics did NOT seek a divorce. No matter what. My comparison is in no way offensive to an abuse survivor. It is a show of understanding to them and of warning to the next in line. And if an abuse survivor should s |
| user name 08.04.2007 22:20 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:I think the best way to eliminate ignorance is through economic development and education. I also think that we will become an increasingly secular society the more this occurs. However, it seems most logical to me that the absence of religion will be the result of society becoming more objective and educated, rather than the cause of it.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.I disagree. Religion is the top of the list of things that keep people ignorant, because it is the only thing in the world can offer "concrete" answers to the ultimate questions, and threaten damnation for questioning its accuracy. Edit: I think it's really interesting how you and I can agree point by point on just about everything except religion. As an extremely secular person myself, I think perhaps it is I who is the black sheep in this field. |
| user name 08.04.2007 22:37 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I understand you must be embittered against your own personal religion, but some of the comparisons you make are quite extreme. Once again, comparing religion to an abusive relationship is offensive not only to the religious, but to those who have actually suffered through abusive relationships. Generally, followers of a religion are never told what to do, how to behave, who to accept and who to condemn. The vast majority of religious institutions don't even touch upon anything controversial. Now, obviously, some do, but there's no use blame the many for the deeds of a few. If anything, religion often merely promotes peace, love, kindness, and charity, and it usually doesn't denounce anything. You may very well have an example where religion does the exact opposite of what I have stated, but for each of those, there are certainly dozens that are parallel to my description. Religion usually doesn't have a "leader" or "rules." Religion has people such as priests and rabbis, who facilitate meetings and such, but surely nobody depends on them for guidance - but they are there to offer it (much like a financial advisor - you don't necessarily depend on one to make every financial decision for you). In many cases, those who are not even members of the religion are welcome in the community. So much for steadfast rules. Finally, I believe you misunderstood my analogy. I wasn't referring to the material that a college teaches, but rather the usefulness of it vs. religion. I mean, one could get a philosophy degree, and that would be equally as impractical as religion. However, a person could benefit (or disbenefit) from the experience of either. I think you're being horribly one-sided, and it's rather dangerous to be so closed-minded about certian issues as this. When one person starts deciding what's best for another person, it leads only to ignorance. Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.Okay, let's clarify a few things - I've never said anywhere that religion should be eliminated or that eliminating it would rid the world of ignorance. What I said - repeatedly - was that in my opinion religious belief does not provide anything of value. So far, that has not been contradicted. |
| Kensington Love 09.04.2007 01:08 |
I think however that when you've lost a child, as I have, you tend to want to believe something(where is my son now, etc.). I don't know...:/ |
| Mr.Jingles 09.04.2007 07:24 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Depends on what part of the media you're refering to...<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Like Jingles said, and I'll agree - religion is victimized in the media.I have to disagree with this one, too. If anything, the media is doing all it can to protect Christianity. If we're talking about the 700 Club and FOX News, we know that they're most likely to hide anything that will tarnish the reputation of Christianity and Judaism, and instead put Islam on a bad spotlight. Other sections of the media seem a lot more fair on the way they present the news, but yet they're only showing us what's controversial and hardly ever we see report on people who a make a difference for the good. |
| Mr.Jingles 09.04.2007 07:31 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:It also depends on the way how religion is taught.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.I disagree. Religion is the top of the list of things that keep people ignorant, because it is the only thing in the world can offer "concrete" answers to the ultimate questions, and threaten damnation for questioning its accuracy. If religion is based on a fundamentalist basis where we're being told that "We are right, and everybody else is wrong". Then it's an outlet for plenty of ignorance. However, many religions preach a theological dogma that doesn't condemn others people's beliefs, and in some cases encourages peace despite the differences. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.04.2007 08:52 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Judaïsm is completely exclusive (i.e. "we are right, everyone else is wrong"), though not missionary and will thus leave others be...unless they hinder what is seen as 'a divine right' (such as the Palestinians dwelling in Palestine, which they (in this case: Zionist Jews, thankfully a minority) believe is theirs by divine mandate.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:It also depends on the way how religion is taught. If religion is based on a fundamentalist basis where we're being told that "We are right, and everybody else is wrong". Then it's an outlet for plenty of ignorance. However, many religions preach a theological dogma that doesn't condemn others people's beliefs, and in some cases encourages peace despite the differences.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.I disagree. Religion is the top of the list of things that keep people ignorant, because it is the only thing in the world can offer "concrete" answers to the ultimate questions, and threaten damnation for questioning its accuracy. Christianity and Islam are both exclusive AND missionary religions, and thus inherently intollerant of other religions. That covers the large majority of religion in this world already. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 09.04.2007 11:51 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Gotta call you out on this one Caspar. Islam is not a missionary religion. In fact, in the Koran there is a verse that says, and I quote: "For those who do not have faith (in the Koran) God has closed their hearts, and no amount of justification will open them again".Mr.Jingles wrote:Judaïsm is completely exclusive (i.e. "we are right, everyone else is wrong"), though not missionary and will thus leave others be...unless they hinder what is seen as 'a divine right' (such as the Palestinians dwelling in Palestine, which they (in this case: Zionist Jews, thankfully a minority) believe is theirs by divine mandate. Christianity and Islam are both exclusive AND missionary religions, and thus inherently intollerant of other religions. That covers the large majority of religion in this world already.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:It also depends on the way how religion is taught. If religion is based on a fundamentalist basis where we're being told that "We are right, and everybody else is wrong". Then it's an outlet for plenty of ignorance. However, many religions preach a theological dogma that doesn't condemn others people's beliefs, and in some cases encourages peace despite the differences.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.I disagree. Religion is the top of the list of things that keep people ignorant, because it is the only thing in the world can offer "concrete" answers to the ultimate questions, and threaten damnation for questioning its accuracy. Muslims will be happy to tell you about their religion and will offer assistance if you are interested in learning about it, but they will NOT openly recruit for it. I believe you are confusing the Islamic Extremists with Muslims in general, which is false. It's like saying that all Dutch are bankers. Islamic Extremists recruit and openly push their religion on others, but not Muslims in general, in fact, like many other things, pushing conversion onto others is forbidden by the Koran. Even Christians and Jews are allowed to keep their religion in Muslim controled areas, as long as they pay the head tax. That's the way the Koran says it should be done...you have to seperate out the religion from the politics of the region. **Edit** Here's the quote, in full, from the Koran in it's original context: In the name of God, the Mercy-giving, the Merciful! This is the Book which contains no doubt; it means guidance for those who do their duty who believe in the unseen, keep up prayer, and spend something from whatever We have provided them with; who believe in what has been sent down to you as well as what was sent down before you, while they are convinced about the Hereafter; such people hold on to guidance from their Lord; those will be successful. It is all the same whether you warn those who disbelieve or do not warn them; they still will not believe: God has sealed off their hearts and their hearing, while over their sight there hangs a covering; they will have severe torment. |
| The Real Wizard 10.04.2007 01:31 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think the best way to eliminate ignorance is through economic development and education. I also think that we will become an increasingly secular society the more this occurs. However, it seems most logical to me that the absence of religion will be the result of society becoming more objective and educated, rather than the cause of it.This will take time, but I agree. Your words have been true, at least to some extent, since the enlightenment... the progress has just been very slow! I think it's really interesting how you and I can agree point by point on just about everything except religion. As an extremely secular person myself, I think perhaps it is I who is the black sheep in this field.That just makes it all the more interesting. Whether we agree or not, your thoughts are always thought-provoking. Your last post to magicalfreddiemercury is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. You are a prime example of someone whose belief system is always up for revision. I really hope you take this attitude into the wider world on a daily basis. It needs it. |
| user name 10.04.2007 16:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Progress is often very slow. We currently live in a society of immediate gratification - if there's a problem, there's a solution. We all wish the world worked like that, but it very rarely does. Even if we satisfy the question, "What should we do?" more elusive still is the answer to "How do we do it?" We feel that if we can't answer these questions that we are in a dire situation. Perhaps this is the very thing that stimulates progress.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think the best way to eliminate ignorance is through economic development and education. I also think that we will become an increasingly secular society the more this occurs. However, it seems most logical to me that the absence of religion will be the result of society becoming more objective and educated, rather than the cause of it.This will take time, but I agree. Your words have been true, at least to some extent, since the enlightenment... the progress has just been very slow!I think it's really interesting how you and I can agree point by point on just about everything except religion. As an extremely secular person myself, I think perhaps it is I who is the black sheep in this field.That just makes it all the more interesting. Whether we agree or not, your thoughts are always thought-provoking. Your last post to magicalfreddiemercury is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. You are a prime example of someone whose belief system is always up for revision. I really hope you take this attitude into the wider world on a daily basis. It needs it. The point that you will always hear me reiterate time and time again is that there are never clear solutions to anything, and generally nothing is ever cut and dry - no matter how much it seems to be that way. In the past, I have had my beliefs shaken to the core, and I know how difficult it can be to relinquish them. Beliefs are like concrete, and information is like water. Once you close yourself off to new information, new ideas, etc., your beliefs solidify, and they become increasingly difficult to break. I like to keep my mind "wet" with a constant flow of new ideas. This is why I love these discussions, especially in this community. I mean, as opposed to most forums I've seen, we have some really brilliant people here like yourself. I learn so much here, and what I learn stimulates me to learn more. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2007 10:22 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:You are part right (though your reliance on the quote is endearingly naïve; Islam is not a 'sola scriptura' religion):<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Gotta call you out on this one Caspar. Islam is not a missionary religion. In fact, in the Koran there is a verse that says, and I quote: "For those who do not have faith (in the Koran) God has closed their hearts, and no amount of justification will open them again". Muslims will be happy to tell you about their religion and will offer assistance if you are interested in learning about it, but they will NOT openly recruit for it. I believe you are confusing the Islamic Extremists with Muslims in general, which is false. It's like saying that all Dutch are bankers. Islamic Extremists recruit and openly push their religion on others, but not Muslims in general, in fact, like many other things, pushing conversion onto others is forbidden by the Koran. Even Christians and Jews are allowed to keep their religion in Muslim controled areas, as long as they pay the head tax. That's the way the Koran says it should be done...you have to seperate out the religion from the politics of the region. **Edit** Here's the quote, in full, from the Koran in it's original context: In the name of God, the Mercy-giving, the Merciful! This is the Book which contains no doubt; it means guidance for those who do their duty who believe in the unseen, keep up prayer, and spend something from whatever We have provided them with; who believe in what has been sent down to you as well as what was sent down before you, while they are convinced about the Hereafter; such people hold on to guidance from their Lord; those will be successful. It is all the same whether you warn those who disbelieve or do not warn them; they still will not believe: God has sealed off their hearts and their hearing, while over their sight there hangs a covering; they will have severe torment.Mr.Jingles wrote:Judaïsm is completely exclusive (i.e. "we are right, everyone else is wrong"), though not missionary and will thus leave others be...unless they hinder what is seen as 'a divine right' (such as the Palestinians dwelling in Palestine, which they (in this case: Zionist Jews, thankfully a minority) believe is theirs by divine mandate. Christianity and Islam are both exclusive AND missionary religions, and thus inherently intollerant of other religions. That covers the large majority of religion in this world already.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:It also depends on the way how religion is taught. If religion is based on a fundamentalist basis where we're being told that "We are right, and everybody else is wrong". Then it's an outlet for plenty of ignorance. However, many religions preach a theological dogma that doesn't condemn others people's beliefs, and in some cases encourages peace despite the differences.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Eliminating religion would eliminate 0% of the ignorance in the world. Ignorant people will still be ignorant, and critical thinkers will still think critically.I disagree. Religion is the top of the list of things that keep people ignorant, because it is the only thing in the world can offer "concrete" answers to the ultimate questions, and threaten damnation for questioning its accuracy. Yes, upon paying the tax, the 'Peoples of the Script' (Jews and Christians) are allowed to worship (in fact, Teheran has a large Christian and Jewish community, for instance). However, if you would look into, for instance, the early Middle Eastern expeditions to East Africa, you would find that they were extremely mis |
| Mr.Jingles 12.04.2007 12:12 |
Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 12.04.2007 12:18 |
Caspar, I'd appreciate it if, in the future, you don't refer to me as Naive. I know what the heck I'm talking about when it comes to this; and I work very hard to educate myself to these kinds of things. You come off as extremly arrogant when you do things like this, and it's not something that helps your argument at all. I'm also aware that Islam is not a sola scriptura religion, but religion is the topic here. You and I can surely agree that there is a difference between the religion as laid down by the scripture it chooses to use and the way the religion is practiced/relgious dogma. All the quote means is that, by the religion the way it is laid down in the scripture, it is supposed to be introverted. Now, if people don't follow that tenant (as in the exmaple you gave) that is not a fault of the religion...that is a fault of the practitioner in question. It's the same reason I don't generally have problems with Christianity as a religion and it's message...I have problems with the dogma and the way that it's practiced. Since the topic of this thread is "Religion" and not "Religious Dogma" or "Religious People", I decided to go for a literal interpretation of the word. Apparantly, you feel the need to contracdict me based on the dichotomy of theory/pracice. That's fine, and I agree that there is a major gulf there. However, don't assume that just because I didn't bring it up, you need to take a patronizing attitude to "enlighten" me to my obvious mistake. I am aware of it, and resent your patronizing attitude. While I appreciate the fact that you are trying to enlighten another person...you may want to try some tact (or, perhaps, establishing first that the person in question really does need enlightenment). You can help educate people, but you don't need to be patronizing about it. |
| user name 12.04.2007 13:46 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2007 13:56 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:So therefore, German neo-Nazis can feel free to re-form the NSDAP. It wasn't THEIR fault, right?Mr.Jingles wrote: Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present. Oh, and while we're at it, why not another Stalinist in Russia? The candidate didn't kill 10 million, did he? The point here is, that Jingles and you are only right up to a point. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2007 13:59 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: You and I can surely agree that there is a difference between the religion as laid down by the scripture it chooses to use and the way the religion is practiced/relgious dogma. All the quote means is that, by the religion the way it is laid down in the scripture, it is supposed to be introverted. Now, if people don't follow that tenant (as in the exmaple you gave) that is not a fault of the religion...that is a fault of the practitioner in question. It's the same reason I don't generally have problems with Christianity as a religion and it's message...I have problems with the dogma and the way that it's practiced. Since the topic of this thread is "Religion" and not "Religious Dogma" or "Religious People", I decided to go for a literal interpretation of the word. Apparantly, you feel the need to contracdict me based on the dichotomy of theory/pracice. That's fine, and I agree that there is a major gulf there.You want to discuss religion in its pure form? Fine, come see me at the Divinity faculty sometime. However, when we are talking about religion in a topic like this, we are referring to religion as it is practiced. Theory is good, interesting and relevant, but only insofar as it is practiced. I could have a field-day talking about Leviticus and the intollerant evils it wishes to enforce, but the majority of it isn't practiced, thus it isn't relevant. Or should I refer to Judaïsm as a severely homicidal religion because Leviticus is part of their Law, officially? |
| The Real Wizard 12.04.2007 14:13 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Beliefs are like concrete, and information is like water. Once you close yourself off to new information, new ideas, etc., your beliefs solidify, and they become increasingly difficult to break. I like to keep my mind "wet" with a constant flow of new ideas.Awesome analogy! |
| user name 12.04.2007 14:14 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:You're still wrong.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:So therefore, German neo-Nazis can feel free to re-form the NSDAP. It wasn't THEIR fault, right? Oh, and while we're at it, why not another Stalinist in Russia? The candidate didn't kill 10 million, did he? The point here is, that Jingles and you are only right up to a point.Mr.Jingles wrote: Why are we still whining about what happened centuries ago? Sure, it was horrible and it shouldn't be forgotten. But should we carry the blame for what our ancestors did?Exactly, the only relevant events, information, etc. are those of the present. German neo-Nazis can feel free to do whatever they wish, and it isn't wrong until they infringe upon the rights of someone else. Up until that point, they are doing nothing wrong, and any past occurences have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on that. The reasons for not putting a Stalinist in Russia is due to his political views not being consistent with a good government. If he doesn't kill people, he cannot be blamed for those 10 million deaths. If he does kill people, he can ONLY BE BLAMED FOR THE DEATHS HE CAUSES. Unlike most things, this is quite clear and simple. The actions of those who came before you should have NO bearing whatsoever upon you. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.04.2007 14:47 |
That is a completely disgusting over-relative version of events. Under no circumstance can you claim a neo-nazi to be theoretically a legal politician, same goes for the Stalinist. In saying that a Stalinist can't come to power because his system of government wouldn't work, while you do not say the same of a neo-nazi, you have yet again shown your true colours. Oh, and for your information: Stalinism WORKED, economically. It was just a completely inhuman system. Nazism, however, worked NEITHER morally nor economically: the only credits on their balance-sheets came from the war-industry. Save for that, they didn't do shit for the country. What an achievement it was. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 12.04.2007 19:24 |
Someone needs to remind me why we even bother debating with Caspar. He's obviously not open to a civil debate about anything, because if you don't agree with him he calls you names and then gets arrogant about how he knows all. |
| user name 13.04.2007 00:06 |
I think he missed my point. A straw man is good for scaring crows, but is very bad for making arguments. |