Author Topic: Religion chat anyone  (Read 9761 times)

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2009, 02:07:39 pm »
I'll continue this later, as now I've gotta run off to class. But the issue of 'picking and choosing' of which laws to follow is not so clear cut, and at its heart what I would call true Christianity is not a system of law. This is the concept of the fulfillment of the law. The idea is that the law of the Old Testament is impossible to follow, and the judgment levelled by this is death. However, Jesus by His death takes the place of the just death (a sort of scapegoat), therefore rendering the application of the Law done. This is what Faith does. Imagine if someone before a court of law was convicted, and sentenced to death. Now, imagine another person standing up and saying they would take the sentence of death in that person's place. This is the concept we work by.

So do you then acknowledge that the god you worship is not just? The system you describe here is not just (nor terribly loving). Why believe in, why worship, why follow, such a cruel and wicked deity?

Shadow D. Darkman

  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2630
  • "Chrono Cross" is good, and spoilers never hurt...
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2009, 02:15:34 pm »


Hmm... Where have I seen that before? (Someone help?)

chrono eric

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2009, 02:48:56 pm »
After much experiences in life, skepticism of religion in general and exposure to the religions of other cultures, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to truly explore the spiritual nature of existence and to come at peace with ones own existence in this universe is to explore the antipodes of your own mind and find some truth within.

Prayer, meditation, entheogenic drugs - all accomplish this task alone and in combination. The goal of all three is to induce a temporary chemically altered state of mind with the idea that the experience will bless oneself with insight that could not be gleaned from everyday life. Entheogens + meditation are an especially effective combination, which perhaps explains their predominance in religions and secular culture.

Belief in an external god and adherence to a strict set of religious doctrine is not necessary to live a spiritual life. And none of them are necessary to live a meaningful life. A person must derive their own meaning in life since the universe/god does not ascribe any. It is my observation that the people that constantly look for answers outside of themselves in some higher power are consistently disappointed with the results. If polled, they claim to live a happier life due to the influence of that higher power, but inside they are still clinging to ephemeral existence and in fear of inevitable death.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 02:55:49 pm by chrono eric »

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2009, 04:59:35 pm »
Zealous religious people rape, murder, oppress, and carry out holy wars on terra firma for promise of heaven. Zealous atheists want people to care about THIS world.
Most wars have been over land not religion.  Religion has just been used as an excuse by wicked leaders to reel people in.

Atheists commit crimes too.  Evil isn't something limited to any belief system, and I'm shocked that's what you feel.  Also zealous atheists don't strive to make people care about this world, that's environmentalists.  Zealous atheists strive to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, which parallels many religious bigots.

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2009, 05:30:00 pm »
Quote
Most wars have been over land not religion.  Religion has just been used as an excuse by wicked leaders to reel people in.

Today, this is the famous Islamic excuse. "It's all politics, not religion." Yes, because I'm sure that the suicide bomber is happy to blow himself up for no other reason but to help some friends and their political aims. It may be politics at the top, but people who are killing innocents are doing so because of religious urges. It's not an "excuse" when it facilitates the crime. We call this being an accomplice or accessory in our justice system, and religion is guilty as charged.

You're honestly an incredible revisionist if you somehow think religion hasn't been the fault of wars, gross injustice, sexism, sexual repression, and every other conceivable atrocity several times in human history.

Quote
Atheists commit crimes too.  Evil isn't something limited to any belief system, and I'm shocked that's what you feel.

Putting words in my mouth. Humans commit crimes. Religion facilitates and enables a great deal more. In fact, the entire Middle Eastern conflict is a problem of religion hardcoded into the region by centuries of conflict. Europe was wise enough to just drop the fucking problem after suffering religious wars of its own for hundreds of years, although there's a resurgence of tension due to Islamic immigration.

Quote
Also zealous atheists don't strive to make people care about this world, that's environmentalists.  Zealous atheists strive to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, which parallels many religious bigots.

You missed this one. Can religious people who think the end of the world is coming actually give a sincere damn about improving it? Or about life in general? To me, this life is all I have. My quality of life centers around humanity and the planet's health. I don't dream of some fantastic little paradise created just for me, nor do I assume that things are going terminally downhill towards a confrontation of believers and non-believers, or that one third of humanity's going to die because of a lack of faith, or any other of this crap that absolves religious people of their responsibility towards humanity and the planet.

This life is all we have (speaking from empirical evidence and reason, not what some stoned "prophet" wrote on a bored day in Corinth two thousand years ago). This world is all we have. And religious people are fucking it up. They're killing each other and innocents in service of religious ideology; they're condemning people to lives of guilt because of their sexuality; they're repressing basic human sexuality; they're oppressing women en masse; they're sabotaging scientific advancement due to outdated, unfounded spiritual beliefs; and worst of all, they're stripping themselves of the one thing that's allowed humanity to come as far as it has: reason. You can be the most functionally logical person in the world, like a scientist or a philosopher, and still ultimately be irrational at the core of your thought because no matter how much the world around you makes sense with science, your entire life revolves around pleasing a mythical being that somehow defies logic. And that unravels the whole ball of yarn.

Zealous atheists are zealous because freedom of religion is a lie. Atheists are the least electable group of people in the United States, and are renowned across the world for being absolutely hated with the most vile passion by religious people. We are a despised minority. In this country, I don't use money that's free from religion; I use "In God We Trust" currency. I swear on a contradictory book of depravity called the Bible to take an oath in a courtroom or for some other official function. My President affirms a belief in God to take presence in the office. We don't even have equality. And you know why?

Because I think that given the scientific evidence, it is overwhelmingly likely that God does not exist.

So yes; I do want people to use their brains and not accept flawed morals and savagely oppressive modes of thought drilled into their minds since childhood. I do want people to examine evidence for God dispassionately and arrive at their own conclusions. I do want people to understand just how incredibly ridiculous religion is and how instrumental it's been in facilitating some of the worst excesses of human evil. And I do want people to focus on making this world better, rather than assuming it's all going to blow up and condemning anyone who doesn't agree. And in a world where people believe in the most inane, contrived crap because a religious text littered with inaccuracies, contradictions, and outright fictions merely told them to, that makes me an apparent villain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-TlRi_uj4
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 05:39:42 pm by ZeaLitY »

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2009, 05:43:09 pm »
Don't have much time before work, so I'll just hit the most blatant fallacy in your laundry list of complaints about Christians.  I say Christians and not religious people, because aside from the atrocities commited by Islam, that's all you complain about in your post.

Quote
Also zealous atheists don't strive to make people care about this world, that's environmentalists.  Zealous atheists strive to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, which parallels many religious bigots.

You missed this one. Can religious people who think the end of the world is coming actually give a sincere damn about improving it? Or about life in general? To me, this life is all I have. My quality of life centers around humanity and the planet's health. I don't dream of some fantastic little paradise created just for me, nor do I assume that things are going terminally downhill towards a confrontation of believers and non-believers, or that one third of humanity's going to die because of a lack of faith, or any other of this crap that absolves religious people of their responsibility towards humanity and the planet.

Wrong.  Just plain wrong.  God does not want complete disregard for the planet Gen 2:15 states that he intended for mankind to care for the world and placed responsibility for its upkeep to him.

There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them.  (See chart below)


ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2009, 05:52:27 pm »
God does not want complete disregard for the planet Gen 2:15 states that he intended for mankind to care for the world and placed responsibility for its upkeep to him.

Call me when the actions of your religious comrades match up with their apparent beliefs and scripture.

There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them.  (See chart below)

Go fuck off. You came out with guns blazing against "zealous" atheists and apparently cannot believe that the phrase "religious war" was invented because yes, Virginia, religion has facilitated atrocities. You are part of the fucking problem. Educate yourself.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 05:54:01 pm by ZeaLitY »

Zephira

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1541
  • You're not afraid of the dark, are you?...Are you?
    • View Profile
    • My deviantArt page
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2009, 07:02:33 pm »
Religious debates are funny.

I'm Christian (I think. Maybe Lutheran. Hard to tell the difference from all the names and crap). But! I only call myself that because I hold certain beliefs that really have no scientific founding. I will not argue them or push them on anyone, I will not go to war or beat someone up because some crazy pastor told me to. My reason? Modern churches are crazy.
Here's my own little horror story...
My family used to attend Calvary Lutheran Church and school regularly. After the fifth grade we had to move to a different city and were too far away to make it to sermons. So, after a few months, we get a letter from the pastor, asking why we haven't attended his sermon recently and where we are currently worshiping. Polite, friendly, concise, just seemed like he was worried about us. The next month, we got another letter from him. Since we didn't reply to the last one, he assumed we had abandoned the faith completely and that our 'immortal souls' were in immediate danger.
So basically, he condemned a whole family (including two young children) to hell because our parents had to work on Sunday, we lived too far away to take a bus, we were too young to drive ourselves (10 year olds can't get a license last time I checked), and we didn't respond to his letters.
After searching around, I saw that most churches here are pretty much the same. They want numbers for their register, they want money. They don't care about the fact that it's just as easy to keep up your beliefs and studies at home, without invading the lives of others.
(I even have the letter scanned if you need proof)

So. Modern organized religion? Bullcrap. Having your own faith, yet still keeping an open mind? Fine by me.

ZealKnight

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1067
  • Loyal Knight of the Kingdom of Zeal
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2009, 07:43:44 pm »
I don't believe scribes have changed that much, although maybe in the New Testament. Because there is a huge contradiction in the Old Testament. There are two verses that say that some other guy killed Goliath and not David. I believe they are in Ezekiel and Proverbs. I remember because I went to a Christan school untill High School, and I found it one day but my teacher told me to shut up and never question, being a an outspoken Muslim there.

God does not want complete disregard for the planet Gen 2:15 states that he intended for mankind to care for the world and placed responsibility for its upkeep to him.

Call me when the actions of your religious comrades match up with their apparent beliefs and scripture.

Actually Z they are right. It's actually a common misconception of Christians. After the Rapture the Earth will be reformed into an even better paradise than heven. Heven is more of a temporary setting until after the rapture. But you will not receive anew body or anything like that, I'm trying to remember what the actual message was but I know that earth and the now are important to the Bible.

There's a lot of assuming and generalizing in your views, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of respectful conversation will change them.  (See chart below)

Go fuck off. You came out with guns blazing against "zealous" atheists and apparently cannot believe that the phrase "religious war" was invented because yes, Virginia, religion has facilitated atrocities. You are part of the fucking problem. Educate yourself.

Well your both sorta wrong here. Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions. But they were completely wrong to come in like that.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 07:56:31 pm by ZealKnight »

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2009, 07:56:09 pm »
Quote
Actually Z they are right. It's actually a common misconception of Christians.

What I meant was that for a Christian people, Americans sure have no issue polluting the hell out of the environment and being a waste-generating consumerist culture.

Quote
Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions.

I was religious, once. It took time, but I read and researched my own experience, acknowledged contradictions, inanities, etc. and concluded, as many others have, that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

ZealKnight

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1067
  • Loyal Knight of the Kingdom of Zeal
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2009, 07:59:14 pm »
Quote
Z, Fou is right that you won't change your views because it is actually a psychological thing that no amount of arguing will ever change anyone's believes or opinions.

I was religious, once. It took time, but I read and researched my own experience, acknowledged contradictions, inanities, etc. and concluded, as many others have, that God almost certainly doesn't exist.


Ooo, I know this too. That's because the only way to sway one's opinion or beliefs is with more evidence of your belief than they have of theirs. But that's not arguing. THANK YOU AP PSYCH!

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2009, 08:03:02 pm »
You're honestly an incredible revisionist if you somehow think religion hasn't been the fault of wars, gross injustice, sexism, sexual repression, and every other conceivable atrocity several times in human history.

*sigh* ZeaLitY, careful. Please don't go making gross claims of revisionism, especially as you are NOT an historian. Thought will back me up on this one, as will the vast majority of mainstream historians throughout history. Since you are in the minority in that viewpoint amongst the scholars, it is that, more than anything, that must logically be claimed revisionism.

Or, let's look at it another way. Revisionism means something has been altered, that the view was one way and people have attempted to change it. Now, as far as I have ever seen reading historical documents, almost no one ever considered religion to be a primary cause of wars. Herodotos didn't; Thucydides didn't.

I am baffled, actually, at how you can make this statement which, really, would not hold up in academic circles. It might be your own view, but you must remember, those who insist that Atlantis was a real place also complain about the 'revisionist' historians that understand how foolish they are being. Now I'm not saying this out of any sort of religious agenda, but it's simply 'fact' (which I put into quotations as any query into history is by neccessity biased by the observers... we really can't have entirely objective history.) But as close as we can get, your argument holds no logical grounds, is not accepted by any real portion of historians. I don't see how you can be so adamant in it.

See, it is true that such things occurred, but to place it on the shoulders of religion is taking a simplistic and skewed approach, putting forward a thesis and finding only those facts which agree with you... a decidedly unscientific approach. There is no evidence for this. That is, you can say 'well, where there was religion, there was this.' But that's not a solid argument. Where there was atheism, there was that, too. Just because two things exist coincidentally hardly means that one proceeds from the other.

Sufficed to say, for as much as this may anger you, religion is by no means the cause of all those things. I will grant you that it might be argued to be a co-conspiritor... that is, where those things arose, religion also was present. Yet such a claim then is that religion and oppression are children of the same social factors, rather than one the cause of the other. Now I will grant that there have been holy wars, and wars over religion. That is undisputable. But that religion is neccessarially the cause of these things is absolute hogwash, and an entirely unscientific statment. The very fact that those things have arisen for reasons of racism and myriad other causes show that religion alone does not cause it, and as such the root of them lie in something different. Oppression existed under Greek democracy as well, heck, each of those things you mentioned existed and in cases were sanctioned by it. That alone is a logical death-knell to your argument. For your argument to hold one must proceed one from the other, which it doesn't.

So honestly? As at least partially an historian (which, ZeaLitY, you are not), I am not the revisionist, nor is any other in saying this. As a professional in a nearly allied field (that of literature, in which at least the ancient history is recorded), you are the gross revisionist in holding that. And I have at my side just about every reputable and respected scholar. And don't bring up the likes of Dawkins... he's a scientist, not an historian. What, would you expect Kagan to suddenly start spouting off about biology? Hardly.

So look again at the concept of revision. It means something has been rewritten. And yet I'm looking at texts older than anything you can possibly read, and yeah, what I say is not the revision. It is indeed easy to throw that word around, but really consider... are you only saying it because it is contrary to your world-view? What are your own biases on this? Because you must certainly have them. We all do. Consider that maybe your objectivity is very clouded.

After all, and here's perhaps the strongest argument against what you said. This concept of 'cause' is extremely outdated. I don't think such simplistic causal models of cultural progression are much used anymore. In some ways, to speak as you do is decades behind the times. That's perhaps the main problem with what you say. It's as though you were trying to make a statement about modern physics by appealing to Aristotle's laws. A nice try, and it might win you some followers amongst the layman, but amongst the scholars it holds little strength.

As to the changes of who killed Goliath, that may well be. I can't pick the verses off hand, but I have read them before. As I recall, it's difficult to sort out things like 'brother of Goliath' or what not, but all the same, those stories do rest in somewhat legendary grounds.

Shee

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 942
  • Sheeeeeeit
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2009, 08:10:16 pm »
Please correct me if I am incorrect as this is from memory, but wasn't the main part of Martin Luther's Thesis that he planted on the Church door (no, I don't remember where) based on the argument of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation?  Tran being what Catholics believe, that teh host and wine BECOME the body an blood of Christ, while Con (what Luther believed) referring to it as a symbolic gesture, not an actual physical change.  Wasn't this the main difference in opinion at the time?  Again, could be wrong.

ZealKnight

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1067
  • Loyal Knight of the Kingdom of Zeal
    • View Profile
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2009, 08:14:01 pm »
Quote
Most wars have been over land not religion.  Religion has just been used as an excuse by wicked leaders to reel people in.

Today, this is the famous Islamic excuse. "It's all politics, not religion." Yes, because I'm sure that the suicide bomber is happy to blow himself up for no other reason but to help some friends and their political aims. It may be politics at the top, but people who are killing innocents are doing so because of religious urges. It's not an "excuse" when it facilitates the crime. We call this being an accomplice or accessory in our justice system, and religion is guilty as charged.

You're honestly an incredible revisionist if you somehow think religion hasn't been the fault of wars, gross injustice, sexism, sexual repression, and every other conceivable atrocity several times in human history.

Quote
Atheists commit crimes too.  Evil isn't something limited to any belief system, and I'm shocked that's what you feel.

I kinda find this offensive. The only problem the Middle East has is there damn conservatism. They are so much more Republican and Conservative in their beliefs than Christians (except Christan Rep.s were incredibly smart this year, no time for that though haha) that they use religion in their government (which by the way god isn't just, he is moral). Not to mention that they are being lied to. Most people in the Middle East under the age of 30 can't read their own language (really, my family is from the middle east) so they believe that the people at the top who read them their religion are being honest. They are being manipulated into doing the bidding of the higher ups by "quoting scripture", when they stop halfway through almost every line. And anyone with a brain from the middle east left already. And to be honest Europe created the problem in the Middle East, but since they changed their ways (which this is also ironic but no time for that) they see them as immoral and horrible people.

Also if you look through any history book you will know that God is racist. He doesn't love everyone, or at least thats what the Europeans and the Neo-Muslims lead us to believe. And frankly can you call Judaism a religion, I mean no hell?

Please correct me if I am incorrect as this is from memory, but wasn't the main part of Martin Luther's Thesis that he planted on the Church door (no, I don't remember where) based on the argument of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation?  Tran being what Catholics believe, that teh host and wine BECOME the body an blood of Christ, while Con (what Luther believed) referring to it as a symbolic gesture, not an actual physical change.  Wasn't this the main difference in opinion at the time?  Again, could be wrong.

Yeah your wrong the problem with him is that the Catholic Church said there are several things you have to do to go to heaven, but he only found like two in the Bible.

Daniel Krispin

  • Guest
Re: Religion chat anyone
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2009, 08:15:04 pm »
Please correct me if I am incorrect as this is from memory, but wasn't the main part of Martin Luther's Thesis that he planted on the Church door (no, I don't remember where) based on the argument of Transubstantiation vs. Consubstantiation?  Tran being what Catholics believe, that teh host and wine BECOME the body an blood of Christ, while Con (what Luther believed) referring to it as a symbolic gesture, not an actual physical change.  Wasn't this the main difference in opinion at the time?  Again, could be wrong.

Close. Very close, but not quite. This is a hairy distinction that most don't know. Yes, the Romans have the concept of transubstatiation. They believe in an actual transformation. But as for being symbolic and not phycial, those are the Protestant churches, such as the Baptists (the Lutherans really aren't a Protestant church.) What these two represent are the philosophical Aristotelians (truth is in the thing, so the bread must change) and the Neo-Platanists (what we see is only a reflection of universal truths.)

Lutherans are neither. They throw aside the philosophy in matters of faith, and are in fact pragmatic Occamists. It says this is the body and the blood? Fine, that's what it is. It doesn't change to the eyes of inspection, but neither is it a symbol. If God has chosen to call it that, that is what it becomes. It is not different, in some ways, than this question. What does Hamlet say? You will likely quote me Shakespeare. But the real, historical, scientific Hamlet never said such a thing. Yet all the same Hamlet DID say it. Alright, that's a weak analogy, but the point is made. Truth is not always in the verifiable truth, and can sometimes exist just in where something is located.

Essentially, Lutherans just go the simplest route. It's said, so it is. Totally irrational, of course. But hey, faith's not meant to be rational, nor for that matter emotional.

As for the exact points on the 95, I'm not quite sure on what they were exactly. I should ask my father. Reformation history is something he's well acquainted with. But just to clarify one thing: it was no act of fierce rebellion to nail the theses to the door. That was sort of the town message board. It wasn't particularly dramatic.

Oh, and of course, ZealKnight, Luther did have trouble with works-salvation such as was taught by the Romans of the time. To Luther, it was all sola gratia, by grace alone. That is, no good works can earn one heaven. Try that one out, eh? I think Lutherans are the only ones, even amongst the Christian sects, that believe that. We don't even believe one can say 'yes' to God, only 'no.'

See, I think a lot of confusion regarding Christian religion, even internal to the faith, arises because people mistake the morality for the theology. They say 'well, they're not following this tenet' and 'they are hypocrites.' Quite wrong, or right only if one think that it is a system of laws one must follow. That's not what Christianity is. Yes, there's the elements of morality, but the sum of that is only 'love your brother.' Of course, pervading the entirety of the scriptures is the knowledge that one really can't achieve that. So what comes out of the scriptures is that reading of one being justified by faith alone. As such, this concept of works does not make a Christian. So when, say, ZeaLitY says that we do not follow what our scriptures say, he is actually quite wrong. All our scriptures say is 'believe and be saved.' This of course is not a license to do whatever one wills, but if one does not willfully reject that, then one has salvation. That is what is said to be the Christian's freedom. We really have no set of laws to follow at all.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 08:25:41 pm by Daniel Krispin »