[POLL]Your religion? - Page 4

you haven't actually posted anything of substance. which isn't a surprise, as nothing of substance would back up your argument. but enjoy being an internet crusader, I'm sure it's working out nicely for you.

I don't need to post anything of substance because you haven't.

Say I for example linked you to a single example of religious fanatics killing someone because they thought their name looked like it implied they were of another sect.

Would that do anything useful in this discussion? No.

Your point is non-falsifiable as literally no matter what I post, be it the writings of Sunni/Shia leaders or the thoughts of Sunnis and Shias experiencing these strifes,
you will never be unable to maintain your position that this isn't actually caused by them being of two separate religions but that it is because they are of two different groups. Regardless of religion.

Go visit Pakistan with a sign on your back that says "I believe what Shia believe".

What you say is like claiming atoms aren't attracted to other atoms because of gravity, but because they are different atoms. Only not at all like that but equally as retarded.

On August 10 2012 03:39 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 10 2012 01:37 SpoR wrote: A lot of these people need a religion to keep them from doing stupid shit and ruining it for others. Lol yeah what we definitely need to do is delude ourselves that poor people will just peacefully take up religions without then attacking/harassing/raping people of other religions. Poor people don't have the civility nor education to know not to follow the genocidal instructions in many of the religions we push on them.

Tell me where the fuck I said anything of the sort you fucking moron.

Sorry I must have totally misunderstood you when you made this statement. Christians Jews and Muslims all take portions of the Torah and consider them either sacred text or religious law. Christians consider the "Old Testament" to be a sacred text, not religious law. So while Christians include it in the Bible we see it as a road map of how we got to the New Testament and the New Covenant between God and Man. The important part to most main branches of Christianity is the New Testament so that is why I would extract it from the word Bible.

You really miss the point, your outlook breeds intolerance imho. Sunni/Shia don't kill each other because the religion tells them to. A religious leaders tell them "kill those other guys because our beliefs are superior" is the same as any corrupt leader justifying his reasons for a war.

On August 10 2012 14:54 FarmMylife wrote: Sunni/Shia don't kill each other because the religion tells them to. A religious leaders tell them "kill those other guys because our beliefs are superior" is the same as any corrupt leader justifying his reasons for a war.

Nobody does anything because of religion. Religion is the tool used by authority figures to abuse the human condition.

Saying it's not because of religion is frivolous.

On August 10 2012 13:46 taco wrote: I don't need to post anything of substance because you haven't. Say I for example linked you to a single example of religious fanatics killing someone because they thought their name looked like it implied they were of another sect. Would that do anything useful in this discussion? No. Your point is non-falsifiable as literally no matter what I post, be it the writings of Sunni/Shia leaders or the thoughts of Sunnis and Shias experiencing these strifes, you will never be unable to maintain your position that this isn't actually caused by them being of two separate religions but that it is because they are of two different groups. Regardless of religion. Go visit Pakistan with a sign on your back that says "I believe what Shia believe". What you say is like claiming atoms aren't attracted to other atoms because of gravity, but because they are different atoms. Only not at all like that but equally as retarded.

atoms are not attracted to each other because of gravity...

On August 10 2012 15:47 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 10 2012 14:54 FarmMylife wrote: Sunni/Shia don't kill each other because the religion tells them to. A religious leaders tell them "kill those other guys because our beliefs are superior" is the same as any corrupt leader justifying his reasons for a war. Nobody does anything because of religion. Religion is the tool used by authority figures to abuse the human condition. Saying it's not because of religion is frivolous.

the point is, as long as the other components for conflict exist, then religion will be substituted by something else, like "class" or "ethnicity". (granted, ethnicity can often go hand in hand with religion, but it doesn't have to. ) And if the other components for conflict don't exist, then there is no conflict, regardless of religious differences. Thus, religion alone does not cause wars or conflicts. It's at worst a secondary, not-necessary component.

The only aspect of this I'm willing to budge on is that belief in an afterlife is likely to make you willing to sacrifice yourself, which is supported by both muslim suicide bombers, the absense of christian suicide bombers (as suicide is the one thing certain to deny you heaven), or even vikings if you go further back in time. But no serious conflict is ever _caused_ by religious differences.

If I may, I'd love to recommend Amy Chua's book World on Fire. It's extremely well researched and educational on the concept of well, what causes conflicts.

On August 10 2012 16:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: the point is, as long as the other components for conflict exist, then religion will be substituted by something else, like "class" or "ethnicity".

This just goes to my point about how your opinion is non-falsifiable...

That's not really an argument against my argument, if anything it slightly enhances it, because if my argument was clearly wrong, history would be ripe with contradicting examples..

On August 10 2012 16:24 Liquid`Drone wrote: because if my argument was clearly wrong, history would be ripe with contradicting examples..

No.. no it would not. That is the thing.

Explain how exactly history could have contradicting examples to a non-falsifiable claim in this case. (Hint: It could not. That is why it's non-falsifiable)

as a historian, I don't really consider history a science in this sense.

On August 10 2012 16:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: as a historian, I don't really consider history a science in this sense.

As a potato seed, I don't really care. If you take a position that is non-falsifiable and are then arrogant as fuck whilst
pretending to be in the right I am just going to sit here and sprout.

"AS HISTORY LITERALLY COULD ONLY DO WITH MY NON-FALSIFIABLE OPINION BECAUSE IT IS NON-FALSIFIABLE oh wait this sentence is retarded as fuck and I should not have said it"
-Liquid'Drone in the future?

I hope so.

On August 10 2012 09:29 FarmMylife wrote: I find it frustrating that Atheist come to this logical conclusion that there is no god or religion and then come to a completely illogical conclusion that anyone that does believe in a religion is just an uneducated moron

Okay to be straight, when you say "believe" in a religion, we're talking like God made the world in 7 days, Earth being 10k years old, Adam and Even, Noah's Ark, Jesus resurrecting, that kind of stuff, right? If so, than i wouldn't say they're total morons but they're definitely thinking moronic in this instance. I mean, do people of "faith" purposefully ignore science, math, modern facts, etc? I'm aware believers can rationalize almost anything, so stuff that disputes the scripture like evolution can be accounted for by saying stuff like "Oh well, that's how God did it, isn't it beautiful?" Without putting much thought into the fact that it directly refutes the story of genesis because according to God, he made us in his image which wouldn't make sense given prehistoric bones that we've found of earlier humans. My point is, at some point we have to hold religious people accountable for being such poor thinkers on the matter, so consider being called a moron an appropriate response. A person who willfully ignores modern empirical data yet places full faith in stories written very long ago by unreliable sources.... doesn't that sound pretty foolish to do, at least in theory?

On August 10 2012 18:35 Syntax wrote: Show nested quote + On August 10 2012 09:29 FarmMylife wrote: I find it frustrating that Atheist come to this logical conclusion that there is no god or religion and then come to a completely illogical conclusion that anyone that does believe in a religion is just an uneducated moron Okay to be straight, when you say "believe" in a religion, we're talking like God made the world in 7 days, Earth being 10k years old, Adam and Even, Noah's Ark, Jesus resurrecting, that kind of stuff, right? If so, than i wouldn't say they're total morons but they're definitely thinking moronic in this instance. I mean, do people of "faith" purposefully ignore science, math, modern facts, etc? I'm aware believers can rationalize almost anything, so stuff that disputes the scripture like evolution can be accounted for by saying stuff like "Oh well, that's how God did it, isn't it beautiful?" Without putting much thought into the fact that it directly refutes the story of genesis because according to God, he made us in his image which wouldn't make sense given prehistoric bones that we've found of earlier humans. My point is, at some point we have to hold religious people accountable for being such poor thinkers on the matter, so consider being called a moron an appropriate response. A person who willfully ignores modern empirical data yet places full faith in stories written very long ago by unreliable sources.... doesn't that sound pretty foolish to do, at least in theory?

yep. No offense to theists, but most of them are just ignorant/uninformed. It's almost like, if you could upload all your knowledge of science etc into their brain then they would suddenly see how they are wrong, or at least being carelessly uneducated.

For those of you atheists who actually want to see an interesting scientific based religious point of view speech about lots of things that are generally argued FOR science as fact/theory that sort of disprove (or don't align with) religious views. Watch this:
He has some rather interesting theories, and points out that there are a lot of fallacious things going on in the atheist world, that are believed on faith just as often.

(it is quite long though)

http://youtu.be/GOvyuNxlovE


overall though, it's wise to just know this:

Science is constantly trying to find the truth, it's core method is always trying to disprove itself. Anytime a paper is published it it scrutinized for details and tested over and over until proven fact or held as top theory until something else comes along to take over. Science doesn't care if you believe it or not, it's basically neutral. Regardless if you adhere to it, it's going to happen if it's a sound theory.

Religions on the other hand, do the exact opposite. They are constantly claiming they are all knowing truth and trying to get as many people to conform to their ideals on blind faith. Every single one of them holds itself as top theory and never admits faults. Religion is very aggressive about making sure you know of it and it's ideals. If you don't adhere to it, you are shunned.

If these were just mentalities of 2 different people, which one would you rather have to be your friend?, to run your business?, to take care of your family?, to make important decisions for the world?

From a purely logical standpoint,

I am interested in what creationists/anti evolutionist/intelligent designist think about these facts:


wet dream = wasted seed. god jacked you off
appendix
sewer near playground.
biting lips/tongue when chewing.
airway shared with food hole.
pointed ears for ear swiveling animals (percentage of people still have traces of this)
goosebumps for hairy animals help keep warm, we dont have as much hair anymore.
tails/tailbone
random super hairy werewolf people
eyes see 10% of light spectrum
countless brain error issues (deja vu, walk into a room and forget what you want, cant think of a word, dreams, etc.)
how the first 10 years of your life are the most important and dictate explicitly and implicitly the rest of your life.
etc. There are at least a dozen or so more like this

On August 10 2012 15:50 Royal_Rumble wrote: Show nested quote + On August 10 2012 13:46 taco wrote: I don't need to post anything of substance because you haven't. Say I for example linked you to a single example of religious fanatics killing someone because they thought their name looked like it implied they were of another sect. Would that do anything useful in this discussion? No. Your point is non-falsifiable as literally no matter what I post, be it the writings of Sunni/Shia leaders or the thoughts of Sunnis and Shias experiencing these strifes, you will never be unable to maintain your position that this isn't actually caused by them being of two separate religions but that it is because they are of two different groups. Regardless of religion. Go visit Pakistan with a sign on your back that says "I believe what Shia believe". What you say is like claiming atoms aren't attracted to other atoms because of gravity, but because they are different atoms. Only not at all like that but equally as retarded. atoms are not attracted to each other because of gravity...

quoted for pure ownage.
I don't give a fuck about the discussion except I hate the tone but this quote desserved more love.

On August 10 2012 20:35 waga wrote: Show nested quote + On August 10 2012 15:50 Royal_Rumble wrote: atoms are not attracted to each other because of gravity... quoted for pure ownage. I don't give a fuck about the discussion except I hate the tone but this quote desserved more love.

If that's supposed to ownage on me or something then I disagree, it fails miserably. Unless you're dyslexic or blind or something.
(What I said after that sentence was: "Only not at all like that but equally as retarded."

yeah I feel stupid now
I need to take some english lessons

On August 08 2012 18:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: if by god you mean god as defined by any organized religion, then atheist. By that I basically mean that I think the probability of any of them having it right is less than 0.00000001% or whatever number CERN considered a requirement for determining whether something was proven.;p Further, the concept of afterlife seems like wishful thinking that has manifested itself as a delusion, and the concept of a soul seems incomprehensible and in conflict with everything I think I know about how humans learn and develop and behave. However, if you extend the meaning of "god" to include like, "thing that created the laws of physics", or "supreme alien planting the seed of life on earth and other planets deemed suitable", then I'd prolly have to consider myself a more full-fledged agnostic- there's just no way to know. If you remove all the dogma from organized religion, then you're not really left with much. But if you trust in science, then you're essentially answering most of humanity's grand questions with "I don't know". Basically, science explains "when" we are here. I think with time, it'll also be able to explain how we are here. But it can't answer why. And personally, I'm fine with not knowing, and not deluding myself into thinking that I know. However, I can also understand why this uncertainty is less appealing than thinking that you know, and that for many religious people, they just choose the path of less resistance.. And thus, as an "atheist-agnostic" or whatever, I really wish we, as a group, could actually act as reasonably as we proclaim that we are, realize that when you insult someone, they disregard the content of your message, and realize that our derision creates more division. But then again, that's also probably easy for me to say, living in a country where religion has honestly never had the slightest actual impact on my life. If my gay friend couldn't marry, or if school was teaching creationism alongside evolution, or if my wife couldn't abort the baby we didn't want, if every politician aspiring to power had to declare that their religious beliefs were stronger than those of their compeditors, it'd prolly be harder for me to have such a reconsiliatory attitude towards it all. Still though, I think Sagan is a much better rolemodel in this aspect than say, Dawkins, and I think it'd be much better for everyone if we could show the same amount of respect that we demand, regardless of how moronic we find a particular point of view.

+1

I went to a Roman Catholic School for 13 years and went to church every weekend until I moved out on my own. Not a single teacher ever told us evolution was wrong or that God actually created the world in 7 days. YES there are religious people out there that believe these things and it really is sad that they truly believe these things. The Nincene Creed (basically the pledge of allegiance for Catholics) does not state any of those things, so when a Catholic person says I believe that God created the earth in 7 days because its required by my faith has no idea what they are actually talking about. I was never once told by a religious figure to take anything out of the Bible as literal.
Noahs Ark, Job getting swallowed by a whale and living, or Jesus feeding hundreds of people with only a couple loaves of bread are pretty far fetched stories in our times with our understanding of the world today. They had a message behind them that the author dressed up to sound more interesting. Most people I know share that are religious share this view. Its about the message of the story thats important not the actual story itself. To generalize people based on what the believe is the sames as generalizing some ine based on the colour of there skin.