Adarq.org

Members Area => CALL EM OUT => Topic started by: vagINA on February 24, 2011, 07:19:53 pm

Title: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 24, 2011, 07:19:53 pm
thread is simple enough.
No evidence of any of concepts preached in it.
burden of proof is on religion, i don't have to disprove the existence of a "god." religion is the theory supposing something inexplicable and highly improbable is so. the burden of proof therefore lies on religion.
As some other physicist has announced, (i wish i came up with this myself) not plagiarizing though...suppose i said that a very small magical teapot orbits around the sun with amazing properties and that the magical teapot started civilization. this teapot however, is too small to see in any telescope, and cannot be celestially or physically detected or proven in any way. what if for 400 years straight mothers told their children stories of the magical teapot, and forced them to go to teapot worship once a week for an hour, where they were to drink out of a magical teacup, and stories about the kindness and greatness of the magical teacup were told at these eulogies...you would essentially have religion in another form-wherein lies the problem of religion. it is a scam-or something intentionally meant to deceive or dupe people.
why? religion is a billion dollar industry in nearly every country dumb enough to believe in it, and worst of all-there are no taxes on charity donations to bs churches, who may or may not do what they say they will with the money that they take from religious followers. It is highly probable much of this money is unreported and/or misused.
LIES the catholic church has told:
condoms do not protect against HIV/AIDS
rape cannot produce a child
the earth is the center of the universe
women have practiced "witchcraft" and have been burnt for it...
there are millions of gods i don't believe in. zeus, apollo, thor, poseidon, osiris...and the list goes on. christianity is not the first nor is it the 5th nor is it the 10th religion with its main character supposed to have been conceived on the winter solstice, nor is it original in the whole coming back from the death thing. there were many folk religions and mythologies before it where some dude died then came back, which by the way, is physically impossible.
if the big bang didn't create the universe...that doesn't mean an invisible man in the sky did, which is no better an explanation.
if you actually do C 14 isotope half life dating you can see the earth is millions of years old, wasn't made in 6 days, and there is actual physical and genetic evidence we descend from a primate relative.
another problem is how religious black people are, and how few atheists are african american in the US. why is this? because when caucasians from europe enslaved blacks from africa and supressed them with weapons, violence, and rape, they also forced their religion of christianity upon them. i dont know why black people are so religious and into christianity. they should really think about it, trace it back to where it came from-and realize it was forced upon them violently by a white man. whatever blacks in africa believed during the 1500s, it wasn't christianity, it was another mythology or tribal earth value kind of religion.
the bible was believed to have been written during a time period when people thought the earth was flat and no one knew what an atom or a germ was. also, in the noah's ark story, apparently a 500 year old man captured a male and female of every species on earth, crammed them all into a boat, and got them to fuck. this means he captured all 1 million species of insects flies and spiders. that doesn't make sense. the bible contradicts itself over and over again and is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't add up and is simply used to keep stupid people quiet, maintain political and social hierarchy, and keep power to people who are lazy and don't want to work because they claim "god" as a reason.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: AlexV on February 24, 2011, 07:34:17 pm
This should be a great thread.

Made me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 24, 2011, 08:15:08 pm
hahaha welcome to the frikken forum..

before I go on, I would like to side with: FUCK RELIGION

sure everyone is 'entitled to their religious beiiefs as long as they don't violate the non-aggression principle', in my opinion, BUT, religion keeps people trapped, enslaves them mentally, and is a tool for WAR.

it's alot easier to die for "the state", when you believe you are going to experience the afterlife... if you believe in evolution and no after life, it would be SOOOOOOOOOO much harder to put your life on the line for A BUNCH OF RETARD'S political/ideological views..

religion is a tool to enslave..



so ya, this is by far the greatest call em out thread in this subforum, because the king of all scammers, is religion.

bravo

 :wowthatwasnutswtf:



thread is simple enough.
No evidence of any of concepts preached in it.
burden of proof is on religion, i don't have to disprove the existence of a "god." religion is the theory supposing something inexplicable and highly improbable is so. the burden of proof therefore lies on religion.

but what about bat sonar bro! that has to be god-made! intelligently designed!

some fucking retard used that on my in a religious debate in person and I my brain just exploded..



Quote
As some other physicist has announced, (i wish i came up with this myself) not plagiarizing though...suppose i said that a very small magical teapot orbits around the sun with amazing properties and that the magical teapot started civilization. this teapot however, is too small to see in any telescope, and cannot be celestially or physically detected or proven in any way. what if for 400 years straight mothers told their children stories of the magical teapot, and forced them to go to teapot worship once a week for an hour, where they were to drink out of a magical teacup, and stories about the kindness and greatness of the magical teacup were told at these eulogies...you would essentially have religion in another form-wherein lies the problem of religion. it is a scam-or something intentionally meant to deceive or dupe people.
why? religion is a billion dollar industry in nearly every country dumb enough to believe in it, and worst of all-there are no taxes on charity donations to bs churches, who may or may not do what they say they will with the money that they take from religious followers. It is highly probable much of this money is unreported and/or misused.

yup


Quote
LIES the catholic church has told:

children the catholic church has touched..........  :uhhhfacepalm:





Quote
condoms do not protect against HIV/AIDS
rape cannot produce a child
the earth is the center of the universe
women have practiced "witchcraft" and have been burnt for it...
there are millions of gods i don't believe in. zeus, apollo, thor, poseidon, osiris...and the list goes on. christianity is not the first nor is it the 5th nor is it the 10th religion with its main character supposed to have been conceived on the winter solstice, nor is it original in the whole coming back from the death thing. there were many folk religions and mythologies before it where some dude died then came back, which by the way, is physically impossible.
if the big bang didn't create the universe...that doesn't mean an invisible man in the sky did, which is no better an explanation.
if you actually do C 14 isotope half life dating you can see the earth is millions of years old, wasn't made in 6 days, and there is actual physical and genetic evidence we descend from a primate relative.
another problem is how religious black people are, and how few atheists are african american in the US. why is this? because when caucasians from europe enslaved blacks from africa and supressed them with weapons, violence, and rape, they also forced their religion of christianity upon them. i dont know why black people are so religious and into christianity. they should really think about it, trace it back to where it came from-and realize it was forced upon them violently by a white man. whatever blacks in africa believed during the 1500s, it wasn't christianity, it was another mythology or tribal earth value kind of religion.
the bible was believed to have been written during a time period when people thought the earth was flat and no one knew what an atom or a germ was. also, in the noah's ark story, apparently a 500 year old man captured a male and female of every species on earth, crammed them all into a boat, and got them to fuck. this means he captured all 1 million species of insects flies and spiders. that doesn't make sense. the bible contradicts itself over and over again and is a bunch of bullshit that doesn't add up and is simply used to keep stupid people quiet, maintain political and social hierarchy, and keep power to people who are lazy and don't want to work because they claim "god" as a reason.

i saw a video last month or so, nigerian witchcraft executions, it was on youtube.. if one wants to see religion in it's EARLY form, look no further than the third world..

i witnessed people being beaten to death with stucks and burned alive, while people chanted, all because those people "refused to accept christianity" etc.

shit like that happens every day in some form or another..

peace





edit: i don't believe in an afterlife, it's definitely "harder" on your psyche, knowing once your loved ones are gone you'll never see them again.. but that's my reality and the highest probability of actual reality.. would be cool to have an afterlife where i could just dunk all day and chill with fam, but until then (which won't happen), gotta do it now.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 24, 2011, 08:52:31 pm
the richard dawkins/wendy wright interview makes my eyes bleed

http://www.adarq.org/forum/politics-news-and-sheeit/a-christian-%27hell-house%27/
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 24, 2011, 09:06:58 pm
that bitch gets owned in that video, it is hilarious. and yes, the only way to know what happens when you die is to ask a dead person. and of course there is no way to do that. so the only way to know is to die. which in and of itself negates the possibility of you communicating anything that could possibly happen after death to any living person, which therefore disproves the theory that any living person knows what happens when you die. both my parents are "god fearing" it is such a joke. i ask them questions every day like, "why does such and so happen?" and they just say "because" or "whatever," and they have no comebacks to any logical physical scientific or mathematically proven argument. that is the problem. religion truly is a mental illness. it has been responsible for the majority of deaths in human history in one way or another. hitler was a roman catholic, he was not an atheist. and stalin killed people cuz he was a retard, not because he was an atheist. what separates these mass murders though is that hitler did it in the name of religion, and stalin did it to be an idiot, and the people he was killing were not religious, nor was he. 9/11, holy war crusades, terrorism, violence in middle east, murders of islam women for not covering their bodies, stoning people for doing things they haven't been found guilty of in trial, etc...these all have occured because of religion.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on February 24, 2011, 10:01:21 pm
tl;dr
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: mattyg35 on February 24, 2011, 10:16:39 pm
Saw these, could have been here but if you haven't seen them, here you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

(http://texasfreethought.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/0EKUX.jpg)
Don't know if this is entirely factual, but it's still funny.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 24, 2011, 10:58:56 pm
Saw these, could have been here but if you haven't seen them, here you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo


love vids like that.. on the other hand, i can't even watch intelligent design justification vids or any of that stuff, a part of my brain freaks out and i get mad.. it's odd.

bat sonar son, god musta deed it.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: XxZxX on February 25, 2011, 01:51:55 am
everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

err what??!! That's not a fact. There is no single proof that he receive help from GOD.  Check out power balance, it claims that it can increase the players' balance immediately. But there is no proof of either.  It's all in the head. It's what we call placebo effect.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: TheSituation on February 25, 2011, 02:40:29 am
everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

That's nice

I love how every athlete is "religious" but then they "sin" by having "pre-marital sex".


(http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/pope-tldr.jpg)
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 25, 2011, 09:00:21 am
everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

yes that may absolutely be factual. however, does this fact prove or disprove the existence of any god/gods?
which side of the argument do you take and why.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: bball2020 on February 25, 2011, 09:35:39 am
I am religious but I will not flame anyone for being atheist or any different religion. I would also encourage anyone to learn from and study some of the big religions and former religious leaders. Even if you do not truly believe, any one to dismiss the teachings and writing of such religious leaders as Jesus, Buddha,Confucius, Thomas Aquinas, and Lao-tzu, etc, is missing out. I would encourage anyone to not limit their own education based on religious or non religious beliefs.

IE An athiest should still learn about what Aquinas said
  A catholic should still read about what Buddha said
  A Protestant should still read what acclaimed atheist thinkers say

Learning about other cultures, and learning from some of the greatest leaders of all time(whether you like it or not), will only lead to positives and tolerance.

Also, yes tons of conflicts have been based on religion, even more have been based on non religious issues, so what? Last I checked most religions TRULY dont encourage violence and deaths, its the crazy people who take it to the extreme. I wonder how many conflicts have been stopped due to religion.  I just was reading about a time when the Pope stopped a germanic tribe leader from destroying Rome simply by talking to him.  I also read about how different a lot of the former "barbaric" german tribes became after Christianity spread.  IE they feared killing and raping the innocent because they heard about or believed about some kind of after life judgement.  Anything that preaches charity, peace, and conscience clearly can do a lot of good.  Anything taken to the extreme religious or not can cause a lot of harm.

Not gonna spend time arguing or trying to change anyones mind, just thought id throw out my 2 cents.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: mattyg35 on February 25, 2011, 10:55:46 am
Afaik, Lao-tzu, taoism, it isn't a religion, it's philosophy.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 25, 2011, 02:18:30 pm
I am religious but I will not flame anyone for being atheist or any different religion. I would also encourage anyone to learn from and study some of the big religions and former religious leaders. Even if you do not truly believe, any one to dismiss the teachings and writing of such religious leaders as Jesus, Buddha,Confucius, Thomas Aquinas, and Lao-tzu, etc, is missing out. I would encourage anyone to not limit their own education based on religious or non religious beliefs.

IE An athiest should still learn about what Aquinas said
  A catholic should still read about what Buddha said
  A Protestant should still read what acclaimed atheist thinkers say

Learning about other cultures, and learning from some of the greatest leaders of all time(whether you like it or not), will only lead to positives and tolerance.

Also, yes tons of conflicts have been based on religion, even more have been based on non religious issues, so what? Last I checked most religions TRULY dont encourage violence and deaths, its the crazy people who take it to the extreme. I wonder how many conflicts have been stopped due to religion.  I just was reading about a time when the Pope stopped a germanic tribe leader from destroying Rome simply by talking to him.  I also read about how different a lot of the former "barbaric" german tribes became after Christianity spread.  IE they feared killing and raping the innocent because they heard about or believed about some kind of after life judgement.  Anything that preaches charity, peace, and conscience clearly can do a lot of good.  Anything taken to the extreme religious or not can cause a lot of harm.

Not gonna spend time arguing or trying to change anyones mind, just thought id throw out my 2 cents.
please tell me what i should or can learn from religion.
i treat others the way i want to be treated because i think that people should be nice to each other, and i want others to be nice to me, and i do not like to be a hypocrite. what moral values could religion possibly teach me that i do not already have. you should not lie because you are stealing someone's right to the truth. you should not kill cuz that steals a life. you shouldn't fuck without a condom unless you've seen each others tests and know each of you are negative and have agreed and communicated on the openness of the sexual relationship. man will always covet his neighbor's wife. it is whether or not he nails it that determines whether or not he has done something bad. if she is married to another person, then you shouldn't bone her.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Dreyth on February 25, 2011, 03:11:19 pm
Not gonna argue why i believe islam is true; i dont like flame wars, but:

If i believe in religion, then i "win" from my perspective. even if the atheists are correct, i still "win" from my POV:

If I'm correct: I have a chance of saving myself.
If I'm incorrect: I don't lose anything in my afterlife.

HOWEVER, many atheists will say "oh forget the afterlift that doesn't exist, you lose in your life right now!"

Here's how I address that:

In this life now, I'm satisfied believing that there is an afterlife, so from my point of view, i'm satisfied in "knowing" that I'm not actually losing or missing out on this life.
Additionally, if i'm wrong, when I die, THERE WON'T BE A "ME." Therefore, I will never be there to think "damn I shoulda lived life to the fullest." Not only that, but if there is no religion, when we die, we won't know it because we won't exist to know it anyway. So it won't bother me that I'm not living my life to the fullest whether there's a God or not. Therefore, if i were atheist and lived my life to the fullest, it wouldn't matter in the end anyway. So what I'm doing is playing it safe by believing in God.

Think about it, if I could tell you somehow (with 100% certainty and evidence) that in a past life (not that i believe in past lives, but listen for the sake of the argument) you did or did not live your life to the fullest. Will it affect your life right now in anyway? nope. Another example, if I could tell you that 10 years ago you suffered a ridiculously massive painful blow to your stomache, and if it's not even in your memory at all and you dont have a scar there, it wouldn't currently affect you in anyway because it's not even real to you.

Similarly, when we're dead, we won't be affected by what we did in our life (if there was no religion). In the end, being blind or un-blind won't affect us, and we won't have any memory of it anyway.

==================================

Now some of my personal views on religion, unrelated to the rest of my post:

- I never judge a religion by its followers, but by its source. I never look at Christians who rape kids and say "see what Christianity does? It's bad!" That's stupid and ignorant. That act is the fault of the follower himself. Now if the bible itself told him to do that, THEN i would judge the christianity (well actually even THEN I still wouldn't judge Christianity because the bible has been tampered with by corrupt officials, and I don't know what the original text said)

Similarly, i can't stand those islamic country governments for corrupting the religion and stripping women of their rights! WHERE DOES IT SAY TO DO THAT? WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DO THAT?

- I don't like to listen to what people say they've "heard from a friend who learned from a teacher who told his daughter that etc etc etc). Whenever my ex-muslim best friend (who's now atheist but still my best friend, my other best friend is jewish) tells me stuff about the Qur'an, he always says "dreyth i swear to my life bro, it says that in the Qur'an, my dad even read it with his own eyes." or sometimes "yo man i swear it says you can marry your 4th cousin, my cousin said her aunt read that. That's so wrong, dreyth, I can't ever be muslim again and believe in that stupid stuff" I always say to him "okay, let's look it up and get some conclusive evidence WITH OUR OWN EYES, NOT HEARSAY."

He always fails to find in there what he's talking about. One reason he denounced his religion was because of the way SOME MUSLIMS ACT (not because of the way they were SUPPOSED to act as according to the Qur'an) and also because of what OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT THE RELIGION (instead of actually seeing what the Qur'an says). The other half of the reason is because of religion in general, not necesarily just islam (aka show me proof of God). But the first half of his reasoning really disappoints me because he won't look to see for himself. He denounces his religion for stupid reasons. He actually said to me: "look at all the people in my town who go to the mosque and pray in Fridays... they are all stupid! Now look at the people who dont, they are intelligent people!" I hate to admit it, but this was actually a truthful observation he made. However, how does that put down the Qur'an? It just makes the followers stupider for not listening to the Qur'an when the Quran is a huge advocate for the advancement of science and intelligence.

Even if an imam tells me something (imam = muslim priest, if you will) I take it with a grain of salt until I read that actual fact in the Qur'an. In my town in europe, many of the imams drink and smoke anyway (but as I said before, that doesn't demean the religion, only their personal morals).

- Finally, the Qur'an loves science, just so you know. islam believes (since 1,400 years ago) that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Not only that, but it also believes that the SUN has its OWN orbit too. lol to avoid that "hearsay" that I was angry about, here are the sources:
"(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion" [Quran, 21:33]

That every living thing is made of water:
"Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were Joined together, then I clove them asunder and i made every living thing out of water" [Quran, 21:30]

That the Qur'an acknowledges that the cerebrum (located on the front of the brain) is the area responsible for actions and sins:
No!  If he does not stop, We will take him by the naseyah (front of the head), a lying, sinful naseyah (front of the head)! (Quran 96:15-16)

That the universe is expanding:
With power and skill did We construct the Firmament; For it is We who create the vastness of space. Verily We are expanding it. [Quran, 51:47]


I mean there's plenty of other stuff, but I don't want people telling me islam is outdated when it pushes for science and actually contains a lot of information UNKNOWN to the people at that time who didn't even posess the technology to find a lot of this stuff out. The list continues, but I'm too lazy now, and I left to eat while I'm writing this so my rant fumes have disapated already lol.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Dreyth on February 25, 2011, 03:16:57 pm
Also, my best friend (ex-muslim who's now an atheist) has changed his outlook on life. He says "i only have one life to live, so why throw it away? It's so precious. I'll take care of my body. I won't be like some other atheists and decide to smoke and drink because hey -- i only live once. To me, that's counter-intuitive."
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: mattyg35 on February 25, 2011, 04:21:59 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThZFJwlqfNM

About 4:30
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 25, 2011, 06:53:35 pm
that is a pretty stupid reason, to live your whole life in fear just in case there is a god. overwhelming odds is there is no god. if life is so good after death, why don't you just kill yourself now? after all, you'd be saved, would you not?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 25, 2011, 11:08:21 pm
everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

great point, god is definitely more interested in curry hitting 3 pointers than 100,000+ haitians dying in the earthquake, tsunamis, genocides, famine, rape, child molestation, murders, and wars.

100% agree, curry got a nice stroke.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 25, 2011, 11:18:24 pm
Also, my best friend (ex-muslim who's now an atheist) has changed his outlook on life. He says "i only have one life to live, so why throw it away? It's so precious. I'll take care of my body. I won't be like some other atheists and decide to smoke and drink because hey -- i only live once. To me, that's counter-intuitive."

see this is where I think people who have a religion are "flawed" in their reasoning.. an atheist would have more incentive to take care of themselves if they didn't believe in an afterlife, wouldn't they? because they would need to prolong the very limited chance at life they have on this earth, because they know at the end, there is nothing??

i see it completely opposite from you and most religious people..

i would imagine it is much easier to "not take care of yourself" or "go out with a bang" if you believe in an afterlife or reincarnation.. this is why i believe religion is a very powerful tool, which I can demonstrate easily in terms of radical islam, radical christianity, etc.. radical islam is probably the best example because of "what they believe is promised to them by god" if they die in the act of jihad etc.. 72 virgins are promised, isn't it? now, why would you care about living if someone promised you 72 virgins after you died.. if that was true i'd kill myself right now while holding on very tight to tubs of KY warming sensations jelly.

i'm not trying to insult islam directly, all religions are the same.. to me, they are a tool for war..

if everyone believed in science & evolution, there would be MORE respect for the process of life AND more understanding of how precious it really is... because once you kill yourself or your enemy in battle, aint no coming back from that.

in fact, I imagine a far greater number of atheists are vegetarians compared to religious individuals? broscience statement, but i would bet it to be true... religion tells you the animals are there for you, just give thanks and chow down (except for what, pork in islam and non-blessed foods in judaism).. atheists don't have an excuse to eat/kill animals other than humans evolved to do so.

pc
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Jon on February 26, 2011, 08:04:35 am
Only fear God, know the weapons of the weak, the weakness of the heart
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: aiir on February 26, 2011, 01:00:41 pm
everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

great point, god is definitely more interested in curry hitting 3 pointers than 100,000+ haitians dying in the earthquake, tsunamis, genocides, famine, rape, child molestation, murders, and wars.

100% agree, curry got a nice stroke.


I agree fully with that statement.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: OmerJamshaid on February 26, 2011, 04:46:19 pm
I'm really sorry Adarq, but this is a topic that can become very offensive to all people on this forum, religious or non-religious. Religion is a very personal view and an argument about it can turn very disastrous once everyone starts bashing other people's views. This would be a great topic to discuss if there isn't going to be any kind of conflicting or controversial things being said, but it's really hard to keep it that way when talking about religion. That is why I think you should delete this topic, just for respect for all users.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 26, 2011, 04:48:57 pm
i don't think he should. and i don't think you should be offended by facts, science, and logic. anybody telling somebody to close up shop in an argument is simply doing so because they are losing the argument. religion is a joke and is the biggest lie ever told in human history.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: mattyg35 on February 26, 2011, 05:38:56 pm
Yeah, deleting this thread would be against free speech.
Staying away from debating certain topics b/c one thinks them to be too taboo is nonsensical.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: aiir on February 26, 2011, 05:40:30 pm
deleting isn't needed, as long as people don't write pure hate/bashing WITHOUT a backed up arguement.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 26, 2011, 05:54:48 pm
I'm really sorry Adarq, but this is a topic that can become very offensive to all people on this forum, religious or non-religious. Religion is a very personal view and an argument about it can turn very disastrous once everyone starts bashing other people's views. This would be a great topic to discuss if there isn't going to be any kind of conflicting or controversial things being said, but it's really hard to keep it that way when talking about religion. That is why I think you should delete this topic, just for respect for all users.

conflict, truth, facts, science, controversy, opinion, nothing wrong with any of that.. this topic may offend some, it may be accepted by others, but adarq.org follows democratic principles, I do my best not to censor user's opinions.

beyond that, I personally love this thread.. you may find this thread offense, but I find religion and it's fallout offensive.. sure those words could cause me to "lose supporters", but i'm definitely not one to put popularity/acceptance before integrity/personal belief. My views on religion are not those "expressed by adarq.org", the views of adarq.org range from accepting religion to completely denouncing it, I am only one person among what, 1000+ on this forum.

This topic is bigger than just "religion", it also transcends itself into the s&c industry -> their are plenty of s&c coaches out there who use "religious tactics" to try and brainwash their clientele, take jay schroeder & james colbert for example. Their training is the closest you can get to a "religious experience" in the athletic world, you literally have to have "faith" that what you are doing is working and will work, if you don't have ENOUGH faith then it won't work, but if you have enough faith it will work..... so everyone who fails to make gains, just isn't "thinking hard enough or trying hard enough" using their completely retarded iso extreme system. This is spoon bending at it's finest. This is why so many people/athletes buy into "bullshit", they are looking for some kind of truth when the real truth is right there in front of them. There's no secrets, no magic, no amount of "Faith" that will cause considerabe athletic performance enhancements, well other than steroids.

^^ that is totally off topic, people are "entitled to their beliefs", but if we're talking about "spoon bending", then people who are entitled to their beliefs also LACK science, evidence, & logic. If someone truly believes they can bend a spoon with their mind, that is their "belief", but there is no scientific backing or proof that it has occurred, has ever occurred, or ever will occur. It's 2011, the scientific community publicly, as a whole, does not "accept religion". These are people who understand the natural world down to the most nuclear level. I side with them.

peace
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: XxZxX on February 26, 2011, 06:15:28 pm
there is no need to delete this thread.  People should be able to point out the inconsistency about any religion. We do not live in the dark ages anymore.  We all hear too much praise about any religion in our life and a little bit critical views on religions should not offend reasonable people.  I truly believe if a person is confident enough about his religion, he will accept these critical views and find a balance between science and religion himself. The one who often shut the door or seriously offended when they heard some counter views need to ask themselves, Do you really have faith on your religion or you just blindly follow.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 26, 2011, 06:24:36 pm
deleting isn't needed, as long as people don't write pure hate/bashing WITHOUT a backed up arguement.

why don't you back up religion with an argument that is logical and factual? people who bash religion have made factual arguments. if anybody here is going to get angry over this thread, they are free to leave this forum.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: aiir on February 26, 2011, 06:51:48 pm
deleting isn't needed, as long as people don't write pure hate/bashing WITHOUT a backed up arguement.

why don't you back up religion with an argument that is logical and factual? people who bash religion have made factual arguments. if anybody here is going to get angry over this thread, they are free to leave this forum.

? ? ? I never was angry....

my thoughts:

I never said religion is real. I was simply born into a religion-practicing family, and my parents imposed their views among me. As of now, I am left very, very confused. All the facts say that there is no religion, but the years I've been practicing my religion have left me feel very weird about 'ditching' my religion. I want to, but there's something thats holding me back....

sounds weak, but my viewpoint.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: OmerJamshaid on February 26, 2011, 07:31:13 pm
Sorry, I take back what I said, we should all be able to express our religious views here. Actually, I would love to hear what all of you have to say. I am Muslim, not because I am born one, but because I chose to be one.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: TheSituation on February 26, 2011, 07:40:11 pm
Sorry, I take back what I said, we should all be able to express our religious views here. Actually, I would love to hear what all of you have to say. I am Muslim, not because I am born one, but because I chose to be one.


Actually you are Islamic, and you are a Muslim

 :wowthatwasnutswtf:



Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 26, 2011, 08:30:32 pm
we have been saying that ALL religion is a bunch of lies and is complete bullshit. religion and mythology are synonyms. have you been covering your ears or not listening? because that is what has been being said in this thread.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 26, 2011, 08:57:18 pm
we have been saying that ALL religion is a bunch of lies and is complete bullshit. religion and mythology are synonyms. have you been covering your ears or not listening? because that is what has been being said in this thread.

just to let every1 know i've deleted a few of vaginaface's comments..

vaginaface, can you at least try to be a bit more civil and RELAX.. i know you've actually been in mental institutions and all that, fine, but just before you hit "submit" can you at least re-read your post & if it is a complete attack, can u refrain from posting it.. the good posts you made get overshadowed by the crazy retarded posts you make..

REEEEEEELAAAAAAXXXXXX.

 :-*
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: TheSituation on February 27, 2011, 01:21:34 am
we have been saying that ALL religion is a bunch of lies and is complete bullshit. religion and mythology are synonyms. have you been covering your ears or not listening? because that is what has been being said in this thread.

Who are you talking to?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vagINA on February 28, 2011, 07:02:32 pm
we have been saying that ALL religion is a bunch of lies and is complete bullshit. religion and mythology are synonyms. have you been covering your ears or not listening? because that is what has been being said in this thread.

just to let every1 know i've deleted a few of vaginaface's comments..

vaginaface, can you at least try to be a bit more civil and RELAX.. i know you've actually been in mental institutions and all that, fine, but just before you hit "submit" can you at least re-read your post & if it is a complete attack, can u refrain from posting it.. the good posts you made get overshadowed by the crazy retarded posts you make..

REEEEEEELAAAAAAXXXXXX.

 :-*

commie fag. first you call it out then you bow down to it like a flip flop scaredy cat
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on February 28, 2011, 07:15:50 pm
we have been saying that ALL religion is a bunch of lies and is complete bullshit. religion and mythology are synonyms. have you been covering your ears or not listening? because that is what has been being said in this thread.

just to let every1 know i've deleted a few of vaginaface's comments..

vaginaface, can you at least try to be a bit more civil and RELAX.. i know you've actually been in mental institutions and all that, fine, but just before you hit "submit" can you at least re-read your post & if it is a complete attack, can u refrain from posting it.. the good posts you made get overshadowed by the crazy retarded posts you make..

REEEEEEELAAAAAAXXXXXX.

 :-*

commie fag. first you call it out then you bow down to it like a flip flop scaredy cat

relax squidward, you're ruining the religion thread

(http://i.imgur.com/I49La.jpg)
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: bball2020 on February 28, 2011, 08:49:52 pm
vagINA=squidward ?  explains a lot

speaking of Religion, is anyone here a unilateralist, or more specifically follow the Bah' Faith ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith

Pretty interesting

Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Zetz on February 28, 2011, 09:43:52 pm
we have been saying that ALL religion is a bunch of lies and is complete bullshit. religion and mythology are synonyms. have you been covering your ears or not listening? because that is what has been being said in this thread.

just to let every1 know i've deleted a few of vaginaface's comments..

vaginaface, can you at least try to be a bit more civil and RELAX.. i know you've actually been in mental institutions and all that, fine, but just before you hit "submit" can you at least re-read your post & if it is a complete attack, can u refrain from posting it.. the good posts you made get overshadowed by the crazy retarded posts you make..

REEEEEEELAAAAAAXXXXXX.

 :-*

commie fag. first you call it out then you bow down to it like a flip flop scaredy cat

Man, I think this kid's just trying to spread hate ---->  :pissed:
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 18, 2016, 06:15:24 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPciCVjMOg
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 18, 2016, 06:21:22 am
Quote
Not gonna argue why i believe islam is true; i dont like flame wars, but:

If i believe in religion, then i "win" from my perspective. even if the atheists are correct, i still "win" from my POV:

If I'm correct: I have a chance of saving myself.
If I'm incorrect: I don't lose anything in my afterlife.

HOWEVER, many atheists will say "oh forget the afterlift that doesn't exist, you lose in your life right now!"

Here's how I address that:

In this life now, I'm satisfied believing that there is an afterlife, so from my point of view, i'm satisfied in "knowing" that I'm not actually losing or missing out on this life.
Additionally, if i'm wrong, when I die, THERE WON'T BE A "ME." Therefore, I will never be there to think "damn I shoulda lived life to the fullest." Not only that, but if there is no religion, when we die, we won't know it

I wonder if you still maintain this position. What if there is an afterlife (there isn't, we're all just biochemical processes, that can be explained immediately by just neutralizing parts of the brain - see if you "exist" anymore then) - but what if there is an afterlife and God isn't God, but it's Satan. And if you pray to God, you're actually praying to Satan (or whatever its correspondence is in Islam). Also, why Islam? Why not old greek Gods, or any other of the 2000+ religions out there? Why? Because you grew up in an environment that subjected you with that "belief" from a very early age, and you struggle to become completely rational and reject it. There was a great saying that an atheist is the same as a religious person - except he's atheist for one more religion. If you're religious, you "believe" in 1 religion and reject all the other 1999 of them. If you're an atheist, you reject all the 1999 + that one, on the same basis of the other 1999 of them.

I think it's arrogant to believe we're so important that there must be an after life. In fact, an after life not existing makes our current lives so much more meaningful and important. Would I wish there was an afterlife? That we were not just atoms of hydrogen and oxygen and carbon playing out biochemical and electrical processes in order to increase the entropy of the Universe? Of course I would. Of course I would really like not to be gone forever. I would like to know so many things, much more than what a human lifespan allows.

But... it's not like that.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 18, 2016, 07:25:45 am
everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

great point, god is definitely more interested in curry hitting 3 pointers than 100,000+ haitians dying in the earthquake, tsunamis, genocides, famine, rape, child molestation, murders, and wars.

100% agree, curry got a nice stroke.


haha

I'm really sorry Adarq, but this is a topic that can become very offensive to all people on this forum, religious or non-religious. Religion is a very personal view and an argument about it can turn very disastrous once everyone starts bashing other people's views. This would be a great topic to discuss if there isn't going to be any kind of conflicting or controversial things being said, but it's really hard to keep it that way when talking about religion. That is why I think you should delete this topic, just for respect for all users.

conflict, truth, facts, science, controversy, opinion, nothing wrong with any of that.. this topic may offend some, it may be accepted by others, but adarq.org follows democratic principles, I do my best not to censor user's opinions.

beyond that, I personally love this thread.. you may find this thread offense, but I find religion and it's fallout offensive.. sure those words could cause me to "lose supporters", but i'm definitely not one to put popularity/acceptance before integrity/personal belief. My views on religion are not those "expressed by adarq.org", the views of adarq.org range from accepting religion to completely denouncing it, I am only one person among what, 1000+ on this forum.

This topic is bigger than just "religion", it also transcends itself into the s&c industry -> their are plenty of s&c coaches out there who use "religious tactics" to try and brainwash their clientele, take jay schroeder & james colbert for example. Their training is the closest you can get to a "religious experience" in the athletic world, you literally have to have "faith" that what you are doing is working and will work, if you don't have ENOUGH faith then it won't work, but if you have enough faith it will work..... so everyone who fails to make gains, just isn't "thinking hard enough or trying hard enough" using their completely retarded iso extreme system. This is spoon bending at it's finest. This is why so many people/athletes buy into "bullshit", they are looking for some kind of truth when the real truth is right there in front of them. There's no secrets, no magic, no amount of "Faith" that will cause considerabe athletic performance enhancements, well other than steroids.

^^ that is totally off topic, people are "entitled to their beliefs", but if we're talking about "spoon bending", then people who are entitled to their beliefs also LACK science, evidence, & logic. If someone truly believes they can bend a spoon with their mind, that is their "belief", but there is no scientific backing or proof that it has occurred, has ever occurred, or ever will occur. It's 2011, the scientific community publicly, as a whole, does not "accept religion". These are people who understand the natural world down to the most nuclear level. I side with them.

peace

Damn, really nice looking back in this thread. I mean we were just talking about integrity and authenticity and bullshit in my log. Preach it brother!
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on April 18, 2016, 04:30:09 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPciCVjMOg

I saw this the other day, sad. If simply challenging ones beliefs is considered terrorism, than ones beliefs are a form of terrorism. (see what I did there? :f)

To me it's more of a sign that dissent is growing, which in America it definitely is. As people "leave religion" or identify as atheist/agnostic; religious leaders, politicians, and followers only seem to get louder as they lose their grip.

In America at least: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/



everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

great point, god is definitely more interested in curry hitting 3 pointers than 100,000+ haitians dying in the earthquake, tsunamis, genocides, famine, rape, child molestation, murders, and wars.

100% agree, curry got a nice stroke.


haha

I'm really sorry Adarq, but this is a topic that can become very offensive to all people on this forum, religious or non-religious. Religion is a very personal view and an argument about it can turn very disastrous once everyone starts bashing other people's views. This would be a great topic to discuss if there isn't going to be any kind of conflicting or controversial things being said, but it's really hard to keep it that way when talking about religion. That is why I think you should delete this topic, just for respect for all users.

conflict, truth, facts, science, controversy, opinion, nothing wrong with any of that.. this topic may offend some, it may be accepted by others, but adarq.org follows democratic principles, I do my best not to censor user's opinions.

beyond that, I personally love this thread.. you may find this thread offense, but I find religion and it's fallout offensive.. sure those words could cause me to "lose supporters", but i'm definitely not one to put popularity/acceptance before integrity/personal belief. My views on religion are not those "expressed by adarq.org", the views of adarq.org range from accepting religion to completely denouncing it, I am only one person among what, 1000+ on this forum.

This topic is bigger than just "religion", it also transcends itself into the s&c industry -> their are plenty of s&c coaches out there who use "religious tactics" to try and brainwash their clientele, take jay schroeder & james colbert for example. Their training is the closest you can get to a "religious experience" in the athletic world, you literally have to have "faith" that what you are doing is working and will work, if you don't have ENOUGH faith then it won't work, but if you have enough faith it will work..... so everyone who fails to make gains, just isn't "thinking hard enough or trying hard enough" using their completely retarded iso extreme system. This is spoon bending at it's finest. This is why so many people/athletes buy into "bullshit", they are looking for some kind of truth when the real truth is right there in front of them. There's no secrets, no magic, no amount of "Faith" that will cause considerabe athletic performance enhancements, well other than steroids.

^^ that is totally off topic, people are "entitled to their beliefs", but if we're talking about "spoon bending", then people who are entitled to their beliefs also LACK science, evidence, & logic. If someone truly believes they can bend a spoon with their mind, that is their "belief", but there is no scientific backing or proof that it has occurred, has ever occurred, or ever will occur. It's 2011, the scientific community publicly, as a whole, does not "accept religion". These are people who understand the natural world down to the most nuclear level. I side with them.

peace

Damn, really nice looking back in this thread. I mean we were just talking about integrity and authenticity and bullshit in my log. Preach it brother!

damn.. that's actually a solid post! drawing the bridge between s&c scammers and religious scammers.

Even if there are people on this forum who are religious, they can (I imagine?) understand scammers & criminals who have infiltrated their faiths. This is not unique to religion though, obviously. There are those who will manipulate anything in order to gain power, especially in politics & religion IMHO.

pC!
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 18, 2016, 04:38:15 pm
Yeah well I don't get why you would ever need religion to be moral or anything else. In fact, if you need it, you're deeply immoral or irrational, and you need some book to tell you what's moral and rational.

I mean, Immanuel Kant figured this out a whole lot of time ago.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 18, 2016, 06:52:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPciCVjMOg

I saw this the other day, sad. If simply challenging ones beliefs is considered terrorism, than ones beliefs are a form of terrorism. (see what I did there? :f)

To me it's more of a sign that dissent is growing, which in America it definitely is. As people "leave religion" or identify as atheist/agnostic; religious leaders, politicians, and followers only seem to get louder as they lose their grip.

In America at least: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/



everytime curry made a shot, he pointed his finger to his heart then to the sky, symbolizing god...curry is top 3 FG% point guard

just throwing out a fact

great point, god is definitely more interested in curry hitting 3 pointers than 100,000+ haitians dying in the earthquake, tsunamis, genocides, famine, rape, child molestation, murders, and wars.

100% agree, curry got a nice stroke.


haha

I'm really sorry Adarq, but this is a topic that can become very offensive to all people on this forum, religious or non-religious. Religion is a very personal view and an argument about it can turn very disastrous once everyone starts bashing other people's views. This would be a great topic to discuss if there isn't going to be any kind of conflicting or controversial things being said, but it's really hard to keep it that way when talking about religion. That is why I think you should delete this topic, just for respect for all users.

conflict, truth, facts, science, controversy, opinion, nothing wrong with any of that.. this topic may offend some, it may be accepted by others, but adarq.org follows democratic principles, I do my best not to censor user's opinions.

beyond that, I personally love this thread.. you may find this thread offense, but I find religion and it's fallout offensive.. sure those words could cause me to "lose supporters", but i'm definitely not one to put popularity/acceptance before integrity/personal belief. My views on religion are not those "expressed by adarq.org", the views of adarq.org range from accepting religion to completely denouncing it, I am only one person among what, 1000+ on this forum.

This topic is bigger than just "religion", it also transcends itself into the s&c industry -> their are plenty of s&c coaches out there who use "religious tactics" to try and brainwash their clientele, take jay schroeder & james colbert for example. Their training is the closest you can get to a "religious experience" in the athletic world, you literally have to have "faith" that what you are doing is working and will work, if you don't have ENOUGH faith then it won't work, but if you have enough faith it will work..... so everyone who fails to make gains, just isn't "thinking hard enough or trying hard enough" using their completely retarded iso extreme system. This is spoon bending at it's finest. This is why so many people/athletes buy into "bullshit", they are looking for some kind of truth when the real truth is right there in front of them. There's no secrets, no magic, no amount of "Faith" that will cause considerabe athletic performance enhancements, well other than steroids.

^^ that is totally off topic, people are "entitled to their beliefs", but if we're talking about "spoon bending", then people who are entitled to their beliefs also LACK science, evidence, & logic. If someone truly believes they can bend a spoon with their mind, that is their "belief", but there is no scientific backing or proof that it has occurred, has ever occurred, or ever will occur. It's 2011, the scientific community publicly, as a whole, does not "accept religion". These are people who understand the natural world down to the most nuclear level. I side with them.

peace

Damn, really nice looking back in this thread. I mean we were just talking about integrity and authenticity and bullshit in my log. Preach it brother!

damn.. that's actually a solid post! drawing the bridge between s&c scammers and religious scammers.

Even if there are people on this forum who are religious, they can (I imagine?) understand scammers & criminals who have infiltrated their faiths. This is not unique to religion though, obviously. There are those who will manipulate anything in order to gain power, especially in politics & religion IMHO.

pC!

Am I a scammer for using religion to not work saturdays?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 18, 2016, 06:55:56 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Jp_XCvVto

He definitely can't science

Maybe this is why I can't broad jump for shit, if the earth rotated then I would be able to broad jump a mile #Earthwontmove #Earthislazy #Bloodgod #GettingcutGettingbutt
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on April 18, 2016, 11:29:39 pm
Am I a scammer for using religion to not work saturdays?

absolutely.. lmfao
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 19, 2016, 02:54:05 am
I had a friend who, at school, when asked if he did his homework, would say "my religion doesn't allow me to do my homework". :D
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 19, 2016, 03:16:30 pm
Well I wouldn't be surprised if they started doing that.

If I were a teacher I'd say fuck your religion, Jesus looked more like Osama Bin Laden instead of Steven Tyler and Mohammed was a pedophile..Drop the mic and go to recess
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 19, 2016, 03:37:59 pm
I can't handle bacon, I'm Muslim (worker in a supermarket).

Cool, then go take another job that doesn't require you handling bacon.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on April 19, 2016, 04:02:20 pm
I can't handle bacon, I'm Muslim (worker in a supermarket).

Cool, then go take another job that doesn't require you handling bacon.

dno, i don't really mind that. there's other tasks that could be substituted. Not handling bacon doesn't even have to be a religious thing. What if you're just anti-meat industry?

sure, if you're working at a bacon factory and claim you can't handle bacon, that's a problem.. but at a super market, you could be in charge of produce instead.. and if some day they tell you to go put up all of this bacon on the shelves, I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying they can't.

so it's not simply a "religious belief" in this example, it's just a belief.. I do think people should take that into account (religious or not).

but enough about bacon.. ;f

good piece by Maher this week, on not allowing religious institutions to dodge taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZAYgovau0

pc
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 19, 2016, 04:06:55 pm
Top Pastor in the USA
 Kenneth Copeland

Net Worth $760 Million

He runs Kenneth Copeland Ministries. His ministry’s 1,500-acre campus is a half-hour drive from Fort Worth includes a church, a private airstrip, a hangar for the ministry’s $17.5 million jet and other aircraft, and a $6 million church owned lakefront mansion. He is very close to being a Billionaire even though he already claims billion dollar status.

If anyone should get paid that much it should be the ones that handle poisonous snakes lol

But yeah I'm fairly certain he is exempt from paying taxes on his church mansion.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 19, 2016, 04:20:38 pm
I just have to repost this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on April 19, 2016, 05:18:52 pm
Top Pastor in the USA
 Kenneth Copeland

Net Worth $760 Million

He runs Kenneth Copeland Ministries. His ministry’s 1,500-acre campus is a half-hour drive from Fort Worth includes a church, a private airstrip, a hangar for the ministry’s $17.5 million jet and other aircraft, and a $6 million church owned lakefront mansion. He is very close to being a Billionaire even though he already claims billion dollar status.

If anyone should get paid that much it should be the ones that handle poisonous snakes lol

But yeah I'm fairly certain he is exempt from paying taxes on his church mansion.

obscene wealth. jesus would not approve.



I just have to repost this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

ya that was bad.. the prosperity gospel stuff, and putting 'faith healing' above actual medical care is just sad. don't actually go to a cancer institute, instead, send us monthly installments of $100 and we'll pray for you. absolutely mind blowing.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 20, 2016, 03:07:06 am
Wasn't it Jesus that said that a rich man has a lower chance of getting to Heaven than a camel going through the ears of a needle?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 20, 2016, 01:39:51 pm
I'm not sure but there are at least 15 pastors that net 1 million or more.

Does anyone else see what's wrong with following a religion that believes the earth is flat and it doesn't rotate or anything?  The way he talks it feels like he even knows it's bullshit but he has to say it anyway.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 20, 2016, 01:56:38 pm
"Doesn't rotate or anything"? :))))))
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 20, 2016, 07:22:30 pm
I believe he's a pastor anyway, he claimed that a baker at whole foods wrote Love wins Fag on his cake.  He made a video about it showing it was sealed(with barcode) on the side/bottom of the box.  Surveillance video shows the Whole foods cashier scans the top of the box, not the bottom so he moved it from the top to the bottom but not before writing it on the cake. 

What's hilarious about this is everyone is like omg why would he do it?

Hmm a gay pastor did this and filed a big lawsuit....hmmm maybe foooor money?  Isn't money the biggest motivator ever besides a big butt on a fit chick?

If you bought a custom cake from a store, wouldn't you look at it before you left the store?  Isn't that what everyone does, especially since you can see the cake through the clear top?  This guy is full of dicks and shit(yes gay joke, vote down)

(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/571791f11900002e0056bae2.jpeg?cache=jlwz6riw7o)
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on April 21, 2016, 08:10:20 am
my great-grandfather was one of the progenitors of the prosperity gospel. the fact that his ideas are all complete bullshit is NOT something we talk about at christmas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on April 21, 2016, 12:57:28 pm
my great-grandfather was one of the progenitors of the prosperity gospel. the fact that his ideas are all complete bullshit is NOT something we talk about at christmas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Peale

whoa.

Trump states Peale is a major influence... makes sense.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 26, 2016, 05:08:12 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html

well I'm not jewish anymore.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on April 26, 2016, 05:17:04 pm
i can't click that.. but, smh :(
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on April 26, 2016, 05:20:55 pm
yeah they do some kind of circumcision then they have someone suck the babies donger to "clean it"

fucking weird I tell you holy shit, just get rid of religion already, they're all to screwed up haha
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on April 26, 2016, 05:36:25 pm
Circumcision is literally insane to me. I can't believe people "debate" this, in any way, shape or form. I can't believe it's a subject of discussion.

That's like saying "hey, female genital mutilation is great, we should think about if we should do that shit to our daughter or not". Insane.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 13, 2016, 06:43:38 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbx-MYjy6PI
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on May 13, 2016, 04:17:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbx-MYjy6PI

Yes, Islam gives women their rights and massive rape culture.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on May 13, 2016, 06:03:02 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbx-MYjy6PI

Yes, Islam gives women their rights and massive rape culture.

it's not unique to islam.. pretty much every religion has a rape culture.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/why_rape_is_so_intrinsic_to_religion_partner/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs <- not muslim, operated a molestation/pedo factory

Quote
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Just no need to single out Islam.. Most all religions are dangerous by principle.

pC!
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on May 13, 2016, 07:00:37 pm
I was just singling them out because thats what the video was about.  I don't take anyone or any religion serious when they allow bestiality and that the earth doesnt spin
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 13, 2016, 07:06:52 pm
I'm starting to think I should be religious. It seems being a good guy is the worst decision you can make.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on May 13, 2016, 07:09:06 pm
Be jewish like me, you wont have to work saturdays
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on May 13, 2016, 11:02:49 pm
Be jewish like me, you wont have to work saturdays

lmao
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 16, 2016, 02:45:31 am
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/05/13/pastor-anne-graham-god-let-911-happen-because-of-transgender-people-in-bathrooms/
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on May 16, 2016, 12:21:48 pm
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/05/13/pastor-anne-graham-god-let-911-happen-because-of-transgender-people-in-bathrooms/

top notch buffoonery.

proof that there is no free will in their eyes though.. if you aren't afraid and do what he says, you will be punished.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 16, 2016, 05:28:06 pm
This guy said it best:

Quote
Roger Foster  billyblaq • 21 hours ago
"God" likes killing babies. He likes killing in general. On a scale of 1-10 of the biggest murder's in history he comes in at a 10. All knowing and all seeing and yet gets mad and tries to destroy everyone in a flood. Didn't see that coming? If god did exist he should be put into the celestial electric chair for eternity.
1  • Reply•Share ›

Also:

Quote
Jerry McDonald  Patricia Anne Brush • 2 days ago
You do realize that this is the same book that claims mankind was doomed because a woman created from a mans rib was coerced into eating a magic apple by a talking snake.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 19, 2016, 04:20:07 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HG0yH6Jtp0
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: adarqui on May 19, 2016, 02:10:27 pm
dude stop linking hitchens videos.. i can't NOT watch them :(  :trollface:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Qpw54ylGc
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 20, 2016, 03:54:20 am
Speaking of Hitchens...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-JvgwPTlv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7MtjJFelAE
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 20, 2016, 04:49:10 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4yS08N0xeU
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 20, 2016, 08:05:09 am
Worthy of repost, in here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7607YiBso
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: alestor91 on May 27, 2016, 07:15:14 am
I agree with Hitchens on religion, but he was dead wrong and far too lenient on the horrible nature of America's foreign policy.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 27, 2016, 07:58:16 am
I agree with Hitchens on religion, but he was dead wrong and far too lenient on the horrible nature of America's foreign policy.

Yes.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on May 27, 2016, 08:23:10 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSphQPA7ka8
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on May 27, 2016, 01:38:28 pm
this is what i think of hitchens, from the greatest obituary ever:

Quote
Hitchens was human trash, and his corpse should be interred in a grave worthy of his towering legacy, an eternally burning garbage fire, rising as high as a Baghdad sunrise, a smoky immolation of all the worthlessness that could be crammed in his "contrarian" paunch.

FUCK christopher hitchens.

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 05, 2016, 05:00:50 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 05, 2016, 07:40:13 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 05, 2016, 08:46:04 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y201QzDdzbg
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 05, 2016, 06:59:11 pm
this is what i think of hitchens, from the greatest obituary ever:

Quote
Hitchens was human trash, and his corpse should be interred in a grave worthy of his towering legacy, an eternally burning garbage fire, rising as high as a Baghdad sunrise, a smoky immolation of all the worthlessness that could be crammed in his "contrarian" paunch.

FUCK christopher hitchens.

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html

Thank you.

Hitchens == Ayn Rand

Brilliant and eye opening to every sheltered college freshman taking there first philosophy course.

Scary that people with this intellectual capacity and worldview are in powerful govt positions.  I guess that's democracy. 

He was an intellectual in the most meaningless sense of the word.  He thought.  Not well.  But I guess he did.

Still don't think that justifies desecration of his corpse though.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 13, 2016, 08:25:27 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MfMuRU7HU
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 13, 2016, 08:49:43 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3MfMuRU7HU

God.  This gets old.  Uneducated comedians bashing religion with pedestrian flimsy arguments that are eye-opening to only a fourteen year old kid isn't funny, it's idiotic.  My biggest problem with comedians is the people who actually listen to why they say as if it's any more than comedy and has a place as part of rational debate on a subject...

I mean this guy just lies and people laugh.  I'm a scientist who has worked in cancer research and I'm sure not an atheist... And I'm not completely uneducated so I don't make things up... Things like...

"Nobody kills people for athiesm?"

Really?  Ever heard of Stalin?  Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers?  Marxist atheists who INVENTED suicide bombing... Yeah we have atheist to thank for the suicide bomb not religion.   Fact is people don't actually kill for religion.   You don't see many wealthy Persian or Saudi terrorists - but they sure fund broke Palestinians to go kill for "religion".   Religion is just a selling point - terrorism is and has always been for nationalism or for ethnic struggle.  Maybe if this guy wasn't so proudly white and making racist jokes all the time we would have less terror...

And as far as religion I hope you all realize that you have it to thank for your freedom.  Religion is what brought humans out of strict monachary...  If you have seen GOT you know how destabilizing the high sparrow is to the crown... This isn't fiction but historical fact - the advent of religion is what finally gave people rights - without it we would be in the dark ages. 

So yeah.  I'm not totally pro religion.  But saying "fuck religion" is a stupid thing to say.  It's more complicated than that.  Well most things are.  Saying fuck anything is pretty stupid just as is saying "the problem is x". 
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 14, 2016, 02:47:02 am
It's hard to argue in favor of religion when almost any kind of terrorist action is backed by religious beliefs of martyrdom and glory, and receiving the appreciation of God. Not only it denies scientific approaches, but it promotes backwardness, skewed views ("believe in our book, not the other 1999 religions and their books" kind of rhetoric) and so on and so forth.

If religion worked in the past, it shouldn't work now, it should have no place in our society. Education (real education) should have a place in our society. Philosophy should have a place, but not religion, which is based on imaginary tales portraited as facts of reality. If religion had "good sides" back in the day, we should blame it on human nature, not on the "holiness of religion", that it worked to improve society. Stalin was an atheist, but I don't think he killed people saying "this is for Non-God!", last time I checked, he wasn't yelling Allahu-akhbar and detonating himself. He wasn't making crusades, he didn't wear "Gut mit uns" on his uniform like Nazi Germany soldiers did (Christians), and most importantly, he wasn't killing people because his personal sky-God told him to.

There's a big difference. This "Stalin was an atheist" so-called point I keep hearing about is idiotic.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 14, 2016, 09:12:28 am
It's hard to argue in favor of religion when almost any kind of terrorist action is backed by religious beliefs of martyrdom and glory, and receiving the appreciation of God. Not only it denies scientific approaches, but it promotes backwardness, skewed views ("believe in our book, not the other 1999 religions and their books" kind of rhetoric) and so on and so forth.

If religion worked in the past, it shouldn't work now, it should have no place in our society. Education (real education) should have a place in our society. Philosophy should have a place, but not religion, which is based on imaginary tales portraited as facts of reality. If religion had "good sides" back in the day, we should blame it on human nature, not on the "holiness of religion", that it worked to improve society. Stalin was an atheist, but I don't think he killed people saying "this is for Non-God!", last time I checked, he wasn't yelling Allahu-akhbar and detonating himself. He wasn't making crusades, he didn't wear "Gut mit uns" on his uniform la Nazi Germany soldiers did (Christians), and most importantly, he wasn't killing people because his personal sky-God told him to.

There's a big difference. This "Stalin was an atheist" so-called point I keep hearing about is idiotic.

Again, you have a really simple view of things.  That's fine.  But if you actually do what your espousing and get highly educated in the field your speaking about you would gain a nuanced understanding of the role religion plays in terrorism and see that the link your describing is false. 

Instead you denigrate religion and use insulting terms like "sky-god" to prove your point.  This is low.  If you want to be educated and have real debate you would learn the first thing to do is to stop doing this.   Your point should stand on its own - you shouldn't need insulting terms for it to be true.  It's like trying to have a political debate with someone about Clinton and the first thing they say is "shillary".  Just makes intelligent thought turn off.

You don't have to like the point about Stalin.  But again calling it a "so-called" point doesn't make it false.  The point stands that a man without religion can be especially cruel and terrorize lots of people.  You ignored my other point and there are many others - the Marxist atheist Tamil Tigers who invented suicide bombing.  The nationalist Japanese kamikaze fighters (nominally Shinto Buddhists but no belief in a personal God or afterlife).  These points are valid in that the demonstrate the what we deem as unconscionable acts (eg blowing oneself up to kill enemies) are possible without belief in an afterlife or God. 

I guess your point is that non of these atheists were doing it and yelling "this is for no god".  Ok fair.  Yes religion will cause suicide attackers to pray to God before they die.  Atheists won't.  They might say "this is for my people" or something instead.   Great point.  I don't care. 

You should really study the geopolitical landscape that causes terrorism.  You will see it's not religion that causes it but war, economics, displacement, nationalism.   And while you might be PC talking about religion and terrorism - let's be honest - your talking about Islam.  If you study the Middle East and see what the west has done there you would see that terrorism is the outcome of the geopoliticical situation of the region not the religion of the region.  If you could go back in time and have a Islamic leader in the 1800s issue an edict about how their is no God but rather the superior race of Arab people's and their national land...  Then today you would have a group of atheist suicide bombers in Palestine killing religious Jewish people and screaming "this is for my people" or "hatha hu elshabi" which is actually a phrase they use.  So great.  You eliminate religion and the people yell different words when they detonate their suicide vest.  But they still detonate it.  Religion is but a minor minor selling point in the whole game - it is certainly not a cause.

In fact it's not only not a cause but just a minor marketing point.  Think about al-quaeda and Isis.  I know a scholar who actually has gone and interviewed people from both organizations.  Both used Islam and promises of an afterlife and virgins.  But al-quaeda never got that many people to sign up to kill themselves while Isis does... Why?  Same religious marketing.  But besides that Al-quaeda fails on every account - it's old men in beards in caves.  ISIS is cool!  It's Twitter and young people and amazing music and drum beats and a fat paycheck and respect.  This is literally what young people will tell you there... they will say "ISIS is cool.  I want to join."  And you know you can't stop a teenager from doing what is cool!   Religion is part of the marketing but not the cause!

I don't blame you for thinking its a cause.  The whole western media portrays it like that.  But it is just false.  If you could go talk to a suicide bomber in Palestine you would see this.  This is an action for so many reasons other than "his god".  This is an action primarily for his family who will be paid.  But it's also revenge against an enemy that has subjugated his people for a long time.  It's for his people.  His kin. His land.  It's because he has not much else - no job, no job prospects, no country where he can find any other way to do anything.  It's for his legacy.  Oh and the fact that clerics promise him some virgins... Sure maybe that's true - but it's an added selling point he really isn't sure of not the reason why...  Thinking getting rid of religion is the solution to stopping terrorist attacks is like thinking the shooting of JR smith or Mike Miller is why Lebron won championships*.

You should really study cognitive neuroscience.  You would like it.  I am not an atheist but I worked in a clinic once w my boss who was and for the very reason that everytime someone came into the clinic over 40 who had just gotten much more religious... We saw the same thing.  Temporal lobe tumor.   What's interesting about that is that you can take that info two ways.  If you are religious you can say - wow the seat of God in the brain is real!  My boss took it as more reason to be an atheist as religiosity could be turned on and off by stimulating certain cells...

I took it as evidence that humans are religious.  By that I mean we have spiritual wiring.  Not surprising.  I mean we evolved in a bleak landscape and we are smart.  Smart enough to see that if you were born 10k years ago... Well life sucked and then you died. Why not just end it now?  Well some people probably did.  But the people with large temporal lobes and a belief that they were a part in something much bigger (not necessarily religion but a feeling I think we are all capable of having under a star light night) kept fighting and out competed those suicidal people.  Those are our ancestors.  It's who we are.  Make that part of your brain work for you.  But don't waste it.  If you want to be like NDT and just be starry eyed and believe your this awesome part of the cosmos who will die and become a tree and stardust and that is sooooo beautiful... Fine.  If you want to sign up for your local church... Fine.  Not telling you what to do but telling you that harnessing this part of your brain is in your best interest.   Is it real?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  But I can believe in God and know how positive God can be in my life without worrying about whether he is real.  People only apply this rigorous standard to god but not to other enjoyable things in life. 

Take Richard Dawkins.  By all accounts he is very happily married (took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad).  He thinks he is in love and is faithful to his wife.  Does he remind her everyday that love is a delusion and he could could be just as happy with many other women?  NO.  Because like religion, love may be a delusion.  The concept of your soulmate and a single mate for life that is irreplaceable is most likely false.  But it sure feels soooooo good to live in that delusion.  So we allow ourselves to be human and enjoy love and religion and other human things which may be delusions but make us happy... 

*sorry the LBJ analogy was pretty terrible.  I meant to illustrate that the 3pt shooter is but a tool of lebrons and that stopping his penetration would stop him while getting rid of a spot up shooter would just allow a new shooter... Poor analogy, poor taste to compare lebrons shooters to terrorism... Agh.  Messed that one up.  Ignore it. 
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: acole14 on July 16, 2016, 12:50:53 am

Instead you denigrate religion and use insulting terms like "sky-god" to prove your point.  This is low.  If you want to be educated and have real debate you would learn the first thing to do is to stop doing this.   Your point should stand on its own - you shouldn't need insulting terms for it to be true.

Take Richard Dawkins.  By all accounts he is very happily married (took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad).   

 :trollface: Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on, I'm enjoying this exchange.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 16, 2016, 06:20:51 am
I need some time to reply. I'll reply soon.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 18, 2016, 09:15:22 am

Again, you have a really simple view of things.  That's fine.  But if you actually do what your espousing and get highly educated in the field your speaking about you would gain a nuanced understanding of the role religion plays in terrorism and see that the link your describing is false. 

Instead you denigrate religion and use insulting terms like "sky-god" to prove your point.  This is low.  If you want to be educated and have real debate you would learn the first thing to do is to stop doing this.   Your point should stand on its own - you shouldn't need insulting terms for it to be true.  It's like trying to have a political debate with someone about Clinton and the first thing they say is "shillary".  Just makes intelligent thought turn off.

Sky-god is exactly what they themselves literally pray to. It's not an euphemism or a metaphor. The fact that you think it is already proves you have a problem with the literal interpretation of these religious people yourself. That's good.

Quote
You don't have to like the point about Stalin.  But again calling it a "so-called" point doesn't make it false.  The point stands that a man without religion can be especially cruel and terrorize lots of people.  You ignored my other point and there are many others - the Marxist atheist Tamil Tigers who invented suicide bombing.  The nationalist Japanese kamikaze fighters (nominally Shinto Buddhists but no belief in a personal God or afterlife).  These points are valid in that the demonstrate the what we deem as unconscionable acts (eg blowing oneself up to kill enemies) are possible without belief in an afterlife or God. 

I guess your point is that non of these atheists were doing it and yelling "this is for no god".  Ok fair.  Yes religion will cause suicide attackers to pray to God before they die.  Atheists won't.  They might say "this is for my people" or something instead.   Great point.  I don't care. 

Yes, you don't need God to be evil. Amazing, isn't it? That some people need a God, the most benevolent being in the Universe, that transcends time and space, to do horrible deeds. The difference is, these people that use God to do their evil wouldn't have done that evil if they wouldn't have believed there's a God waiting there for them with 72 virgins. Yes, some people, raise from infancy to believe such nonsense, are capable of these monstrous acts. And there's no way to un-brainwash them.

You can make the argument that they would've done it anyway, that they would've found another way to cause the same harm without being "believers". We can't know that. All we know is the evidence that is being presented, and that evidence points to the fact that they take religious interpretations literally, they genuinely believe in the after-life and the martyrdom of their acts, and that they act accordingly.

Quote
You should really study the geopolitical landscape that causes terrorism.  You will see it's not religion that causes it but war, economics, displacement, nationalism.   And while you might be PC talking about religion and terrorism - let's be honest - your talking about Islam.  If you study the Middle East and see what the west has done there you would see that terrorism is the outcome of the geopoliticical situation of the region not the religion of the region.  If you could go back in time and have a Islamic leader in the 1800s issue an edict about how their is no God but rather the superior race of Arab people's and their national land...  Then today you would have a group of atheist suicide bombers in Palestine killing religious Jewish people and screaming "this is for my people" or "hatha hu elshabi" which is actually a phrase they use.  So great.  You eliminate religion and the people yell different words when they detonate their suicide vest.  But they still detonate it.  Religion is but a minor minor selling point in the whole game - it is certainly not a cause.

Of course it's not exclusively religious. That's OBVIOUS. Of course it's a combination of factors, I would say, economical, first and foremost, and then educational. The lack of education allows fairy-tales like religion to flourish, whenever the lack of education presents itself. People don't know why stuff happens, have no idea of scientific facts, and therefore attribute everything to a supernatural force. It's the human nature. Evil people use that lack of information and the ignorance of uneducated people to manipulate them. Nothing new here. Could an atheist do the same? Of course. The difference is that an atheist wouldn't have the power of an invisible being that cannot be demoted in any way. Once you corrupt someone to believe in God, it's very hard for someone else to undo that corruption. God cannot be seen and cannot be fought with. Extremely hard to deal with. Whenever it's convenient, the corruptor can manipulate the mind of the corruptee to keep him corrupted.

Quote
In fact it's not only not a cause but just a minor marketing point.  Think about al-quaeda and Isis.  I know a scholar who actually has gone and interviewed people from both organizations.  Both used Islam and promises of an afterlife and virgins.  But al-quaeda never got that many people to sign up to kill themselves while Isis does... Why?  Same religious marketing.  But besides that Al-quaeda fails on every account - it's old men in beards in caves.  ISIS is cool!  It's Twitter and young people and amazing music and drum beats and a fat paycheck and respect.  This is literally what young people will tell you there... they will say "ISIS is cool.  I want to join."  And you know you can't stop a teenager from doing what is cool! Religion is part of the marketing but not the cause!

I would say religion is very much the cause. If you get out of the status-quo, they will use religion, not another cause, for executing you, for torturing you. They will say "it's the will of Allah", they won't say "it wasn't cool of you not being with us anymore". If the people joining them would have a problem, they wouldn't have joined them in the first place. So religion is a very important part, the essential part here. Religion "unites" these people to do all these things. If there was no "Allah" supporting them, they would be divided. They would ask why the heck they are doing everything they're doing (most of them, at least). But with Allah backing them, it's alright - it's even MORAL.

Quote
I don't blame you for thinking its a cause.  The whole western media portrays it like that.  But it is just false.  If you could go talk to a suicide bomber in Palestine you would see this.  This is an action for so many reasons other than "his god".  This is an action primarily for his family who will be paid.  But it's also revenge against an enemy that has subjugated his people for a long time.  It's for his people.  His kin. His land.  It's because he has not much else - no job, no job prospects, no country where he can find any other way to do anything.  It's for his legacy.  Oh and the fact that clerics promise him some virgins... Sure maybe that's true - but it's an added selling point he really isn't sure of not the reason why...  Thinking getting rid of religion is the solution to stopping terrorist attacks is like thinking the shooting of JR smith or Mike Miller is why Lebron won championships*.

Have you spoken to suicidal maniacs lately? How do you know so well what's in their mind? Is what you're saying true in some of the cases? I guess so. But again, the religious part gives the suicide bomber a certain "moral background" that somehow makes his act "just", gives him the courage to do it. Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things.

Quote
You should really study cognitive neuroscience.  You would like it.  I am not an atheist but I worked in a clinic once w my boss who was and for the very reason that everytime someone came into the clinic over 40 who had just gotten much more religious... We saw the same thing.  Temporal lobe tumor.   What's interesting about that is that you can take that info two ways.  If you are religious you can say - wow the seat of God in the brain is real!  My boss took it as more reason to be an atheist as religiosity could be turned on and off by stimulating certain cells...

I'm aware of that. I even posted an interesting video about it. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

The whole video ^^^^ is about 1:30 hours long, and talks about the localization of the "religious center" in the brain. Very interesting.

Quote
I took it as evidence that humans are religious.  By that I mean we have spiritual wiring.  Not surprising.  I mean we evolved in a bleak landscape and we are smart.  Smart enough to see that if you were born 10k years ago... Well life sucked and then you died. Why not just end it now?  Well some people probably did.  But the people with large temporal lobes and a belief that they were a part in something much bigger (not necessarily religion but a feeling I think we are all capable of having under a star light night) kept fighting and out competed those suicidal people.  Those are our ancestors.  It's who we are.  Make that part of your brain work for you.  But don't waste it.  If you want to be like NDT and just be starry eyed and believe your this awesome part of the cosmos who will die and become a tree and stardust and that is sooooo beautiful... Fine.  If you want to sign up for your local church... Fine.  Not telling you what to do but telling you that harnessing this part of your brain is in your best interest.   Is it real?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  But I can believe in God and know how positive God can be in my life without worrying about whether he is real.  People only apply this rigorous standard to god but not to other enjoyable things in life. 

It depends on how you view things. If you're interested in what is true, you need to dismiss God. Until factual evidence provides itself, God is the same as a pink elephant orbiting Pluto. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the other 2000 Gods of the other 2000 religions out there.

If you want meaning in your life, make your own meaning. That's the most powerful thing, the true freedom to make your own meaning. You don't need God for that. On the contrary, knowing this is the only life you'll ever have, maybe you'll start to cherish it more.

Quote
Take Richard Dawkins.  By all accounts he is very happily married (took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad).  He thinks he is in love and is faithful to his wife.  Does he remind her everyday that love is a delusion and he could could be just as happy with many other women?  NO.  Because like religion, love may be a delusion.  The concept of your soulmate and a single mate for life that is irreplaceable is most likely false.  But it sure feels soooooo good to live in that delusion.  So we allow ourselves to be human and enjoy love and religion and other human things which may be delusions but make us happy... 

Nobody is denying you the right to believe in that "illusion", if it makes sense for you. By the way, you couldn't hold yourself from being condescending by saying
Quote
(took him three tries but with his insufferable personality and looks that's not too bad)
- I guess that God-given morality and benevolence allowed you to say that, from a superior "I'm so much better, I get married once and live forever with my wife" position. Good for you. The problem is when you start killing other people left and right BECAUSE of your illusion. If Richard Dawkins came in and said "for my wife, I will blow up this church and everybody in it, because I'm an atheist and I love my wife", then we would have a problem. If you choose to believe in God, for whatever reason, but you keep that to yourself, and to those that accept you as such (even though I think it's very weird, in a way), then great. No problems whatsoever. But don't come in with the agenda that God is "real" and "you guys need to do this and that because my sky-God told me this in a 2000 year old book and you will burn in Hell if you don't but I don't really believe you will burn in Hell because if I did I wouldn't care and so on and so forth". People that act like this don't really believe in their God. They are so insecure, or else, being backed-up by the most powerful force ever, they wouldn't need to commit all these acts in the name of their God. God is strong enough, doesn't need their support. In fact, it's arrogant to believe he/she/it does.

So there are so many logical inconsistencies with religious people.

Quote
*sorry the LBJ analogy was pretty terrible.  I meant to illustrate that the 3pt shooter is but a tool of lebrons and that stopping his penetration would stop him while getting rid of a spot up shooter would just allow a new shooter... Poor analogy, poor taste to compare lebrons shooters to terrorism... Agh.  Messed that one up.  Ignore it. 

lol, I understood what you meant.

All in all, religion, for a certain type of people at least, is a terrible, terrible tool of evil. No, you can't say "so is atheism, for a certain type of people". It's completely different for the reasons discussed above (you can't "not fight" with a "non existing being").

Not only it creates all these problems, but it's stopping science in its tracks by always having the debate of what should be in our schools, if religious beliefs should be presented educationally at the same time with science because "they might both be right". Religion has no place in a civilized society's education system. Facts do. Belief doesn't.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 18, 2016, 05:46:25 pm
^^^  You said a lot.  And well you are entitled to your belief but I have just two issues with it.

A) You have to understand the rules of sane debate.  If you want to win an argument you should be able to win your argument without being offensive.  I'm arguing with you and my point of view is the view of the theist.  You can't rewrite offensive things as metaphors when they are loaded statements to everyone else.  Using the term sky-god is offensive.  Comparing my religion to a fairy-tale (which is supposed to be believed by children only) is offensive.  Saying religion corrupts the mind is offensive.  Let your points stand on their own and try winning an argument by not insulting the person or offending him. 

And don't compare your offensive language toward my beliefs or the beliefs I am defending as similar to my tongue in cheek remark about Richard Dawkins.  Making fun of a public figure who is known to be insufferable and admits it himself is far different than what you are doing which is belittling religion by using terms that make it sound childish and archaic.  Not that I am not making fun of Richard Dawkins for being an atheist - that would be akin to what you are doing which is making fun of religion.  I am not saying "oh yeah that guy richard dawkins who believes in NOTHING (what an idiot)".  I'm teasing about something that is completely unrelated...  If you snuck in a clever jab about how I can't jump off one foot that would be funny and fine - it's different when you use inflammatory language about ones beliefs...

B)
Quote
Have you spoken to suicidal maniacs lately? How do you know so well what's in their mind? Is what you're saying true in some of the cases? I guess so. But again, the religious part gives the suicide bomber a certain "moral background" that somehow makes his act "just", gives him the courage to do it. Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things.

Yes.  I have.  I am part of the major depression and suicide consortium.  I study this for a career.  That doesn't mean you have to agree with me.  You can disagree all you want.  You can not believe in global warming.  You can even provide evidence against global warming (maybe there as just a cold winter where you live).  But the point is there are a lot of people who do this for a career and I can tell you that the top minds simply do not agree with you.  They would argue that religion is but a tiny part of the issue.  There happens to be a lot of unscientific simply minded racist people like Christopher Hitchens who make unscientific but convincing arguments about how Islam is this evil vessel and how without it there would be far less terrorism but the majority of actual scholars know that the geopolitical factors that you admitted are 99.99% of the cause...

The thing is this has been tried before.  During the cold war the Russians were committing all these atrocities.  People very similar to Christopher Hitchens had the opposite viewpoint...  It was thought that people can only be so cruel when they don't believe in god.  Without god there are no lasting consequences so the godless soviets could commit all kinds of atrocities that we could never commit as good judeo-christian people...

Now the coin has been flipped and we believe the religious extremism is the only way someone could excuse themselves of moral consequences and do horrific things that kill innocents...   

But have you ever asked the opposite?  Have you ever asked how many people have been about to kill themselves and others but have then reconsidered because of their faith in god that things will get better?   That this struggle is not forever?  Or even stopped from doing something terrible because of their fear of what would happen to them from god if they did it?   How many suicide attacks has belief in god averted?  How many suicide attacks has atheism averted?  How many times have people been about to blow themselves up and then said "you know I'm not 100% in on the god belief thing so I'm not gonna do it".

You don't know.  You only know about the data when someone does commit a horrific act.  You don't know the causes of not committing horrific acts.  You don't know how often religion is that cause...

And you simply don't know the culture.  You don't know that Muslim people are not actually brought up with the 72 virgin myths and it is largely israeli propaganda.  This is not actually part of their religion or their culture - no religious text mentions virgins (an obscure hadith mentions 72 wives in heaven) and their actual religious text (the Koran) states explicitly that suicide is a sin and those that commit suicide will be punished...

You subscribe to the prevailing view of israeli propaganda which is that the problem with palestinians is not the way they are treated by Israeli's but something inherent to their religion and culture.  It's a distraction from a very real atrocity. 

Those who are cultural scholars do not hold this belief.  They realize that religion is not necessarily good or bad but far less of a motivator than the politics.


C) My point about marriage and illusion is that I do not think that humans are wholly rational beings.  Maybe you are.  Good luck.  You will be very unhappy if you deny yourself anything for which is their is no evidence for - if you wish to avoid love because there is no evidence for it I am sorry for you.  Humans are all a little delusional and if we eliminate religion and faith and love from the world we eliminate a lot of good things that make us happy... Finally consider this statement that you made and consider that even if it were true I don't agree with it:

Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things.

1) Let's say it's true.  Let's also say we can somehow eliminate it (we can't). So we eliminate a source of happiness, a motivation for which so much good is done, something that makes us happy and has positive and negative effects on people and we lower suicide attacks.  Ok, Let's assume that's true and consider some other things.

2) Eliminate males.  Wow this would help.  Maybe even just a chemical castration after a certain age.  Violence is overwhelmingly male. Would be a weird world but certainly would substantially lower  the incidence of so much violence and destruction if we could eliminate males.  There are many many examples of non-religious violence.  Very few of female violence of any kind - even in countries were women are subjugated and basically do what men tell them to do!

3) Eliminate destabilizing war and occupation.  Yes this would work.

----------------------------------

So, you see the three options and you really think #1 is the problem?  The order of the problem is 3,2,1.  #1 is the hardest to enact and would likely lead to a lot of negative consequences as you deprive people a source of supreme happiness and hope... #2 is the next hardest to pass but actually makes more sense than #1.  And #3 is logically completely possible and would have the greatest source of change...  So why even consider what are minor hard to change factors when you have #3 staring you in the face...  If you want to reform religion fine... If you want to reform men... YES please.  Men are terrible.  But to speak of elimination of religion as a rational solution....  Eliminating water is also a solution - everyone dies and can't be violent... But seems silly when we have the obvious solution in front of us...

Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 06:29:11 am
Until I reply, this guy says it well, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDwr8Ptq3gc
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 09:44:42 am
Until I reply, this guy says it well, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDwr8Ptq3gc

Wow.  It's so sad that people make videos like that.  Watching videos like this actually make make you stupider and more arrogant.  I mean is it an accident that the guy uses a racist caricature voice for the black guy in the beginning?  Why is that necessary?  Why make a video where you think your so smart and can control the debate and make and describe the same weak model that you argue against.  It's easy to criticize almost anything in a 10 minute forum where you control everything...

This debate is silly.  Clearly you watch a lot of YouTube.  YouTube and Internet education is basically an echo chamber for what you already believe and just helps you foment hate where you were once unsure...  Read books.  Go to school.  Talk to a religious scholar.  Read actual arguments.  Not YouTube cartoon videos where they portray God as an idiot because they think it's funny.  Offensive and racist cartoons are not helpful... Maybe funny... But not helpful.  I really cringe everytime someone try's to have rational debate and brings up a point made on South Park or family guy or by a stand up comedian.  God save us all if this is where we get our information from.

The funny thing about all this is that you hold yourself up as the logical and extremely smart guy.  I make no such claims.  Your the atheist who doesn't believe.   But you do.  You clearly don't like religion.  You think it's stupid.  You think people who believe in it are stupid.  You think a cartoon that is highly offensive and racist that makes childlike arguments about the paradox of religion is somehow edifying...

But... Wait...  That's not the debate!  I'm not arguing that you should believe in God or that it's rational for you to.  I'm arguing that religion is not the primary cause behind terrorism.   The religion does not fuel terrorism and that in an alternate world without Islam the geopolitical situation in the Middle East would produce similar results.  It's not feasible to eliminate religion but if it were I'm arguing that this wouldn't be a solution to end terrorism.  I'm arguing that nationalism is powerful enough of a force and religion is really just more identity politics tied into nationalism.  I'm arguing that if you study suicidal manics you don't see religiosity in a higher degree than you do in regular people.  It so happens that many people study these issues and the academic consensus is that your view of religion as a primary driver of violence and terrorism is a red herring.  It is a view shared by tons of comedians, snarky cartoon characters and British neocons like Christopher hitchens.  But it's wrong.  You moved away from this argument and posted a link to an anti religion cartoon.  Don't do that.  It just shows your bias.  The argument I'm making has nothing to do with whether religion is rational or paradoxical.  You don't want to stick to the subject - fine. But there are a million people for you to argue with if that's the case. 
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 09:55:36 am
Because comedy is a funny way of talking about something serious.

I don't see any reason to talk to a "religious scholar". Nothing to gain from there. Why would you discuss some book written by peasants who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 10:09:18 am
Because comedy is a funny way of talking about something serious.

I don't see any reason to talk to a "religious scholar". Nothing to gain from there. Why would you discuss some book written by peasants who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun?

Comedy is a way to no longer talk about something serious. 

Oh yeah I forgot.  You are the same guy who has nothing to gain from talking to a doctor about medicine.  You are AMAZINGLY close minded.  In the same time it took you to write that offensive comparison about how religious scholars are peasants you could have actually taken my advice and maybe looked up what a religious scholar is...

Instead I have to do it for you.  So I googled religious scholar.  And here is the first result:

Scholars in religious studies, the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions.

Yeah.  See the issue?  This is why you can't be argued with.  Because you think it's resonable to assume I would like to spend ten minutes of my time watching a racist offensive cartoon that regurgitates pedestrian arguments about religion  but you can't be bothered to do a google search for 2 seconds and learn from people who have devoted a career study a complicated issue that you solved on the Internet...
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 10:16:24 am
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 10:48:51 am
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

You do care.  You think religious beliefs are a primary cause of terrorism.  You think they should be eliminated.  Yet you don't care to understand them.  You don't care to understand how religious beliefs propagate.  You don't care to understand the history behind them.  You don't care to find out if it's actually true that religion is what causes people to do terrorism but you do believe it and that's final...

Sorry don't get that.  I think cancer sucks and I think if we eliminate cancer we eliminate a lot of suffering.  So I study cancer.  How it works.  What proteins are made. The mutations that cause it.  How it occurs in different tissues.  What causes it.   If you don't like something and think the world would be a better place without it then it's pretty lazy not to study it. 

Maybe you still don't understand what a religious scholar is. A religious scholar says things like this:

"But again, the religious part gives the suicide bomber a certain "moral background" that somehow makes his act "just", gives him the courage to do it. Eliminate religion, and at least we substantially lower the incidence of these things."

You said that.  You are a religious scholar.  Only your not a good one.  A good religious scholar provides reference, uses statistics, interviews people, generates data.  He uses this secular thing called the scientific method to arrive at his claims rather than YouTube videos of cartoons and comedians.  Personally I have more faith in the results of the scientific method to describe the causes of terrorism than I do in your method which is to say so.  So when the leading scholars who study terrorism say religion is a bit player in the problem and you say "no it's very much the cause" I am going to side with the academic consensus.  I try to give you a chance to maybe study the rigorous data about the field rather than use YouTube videos but you refuse to take the academic scientific study of religion and human behavior seriously.  You may be right.  But so might the fringe guy who thinks global warming is a hoax.  But like Carl Sagan said - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.  But you won't even read about the academic consensus in the field - let alone begin refuting it.  That's not extraordinary to me.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 20, 2016, 11:00:08 am
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

Okay, fine. It is true that billions of people over the course of human history have derived deep meaning from participation in communal religious life and belief in a supernatural power of some kind. You can believe that the supernatural is nonsense and still be interested in engaging with why so many people believe, why so many people are drawn to religious texts -- not just the Bible or the Quran but also the Tao and the Vedas and the Talmud and writings of Confucius. Many of those people are vastly brighter than you, many of them have wrestled long and hard with the contradictions of belief and science.

If you don't want to engage with them, fine. But insulting them because Richard Dawkins makes you feel good about yourself is not a great look.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: undoubtable on July 20, 2016, 12:02:31 pm
Just read this the other day!

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/can-spiritualism-and-science-coexist?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox#link_time=1468859624 (http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/can-spiritualism-and-science-coexist?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox#link_time=1468859624)
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: vag on July 20, 2016, 12:19:53 pm
I am an atheist, to the bone. But raptor is flat out wrong at this debate.
However, in his defense, a big part of this anti-religious 'rage' is the racism/oppression atheists are subject to. It is a fact, atheists are a minority and are treated as weirdos. This is still a theocratic/religious society. A little more at some places ( e.g. Greece, lol )  , a little less at others.
Now does that mean you need to be a dick because others are dicks towards you? Or you need to dismiss a mental/philosophical movement just because a part of its base is radical? Of course not, on the contrary, you gotta stay open minded as you preach.
I'm just saying, i can see how this happens, it is same old endless loop that appears everywhere : social conformism->oppression->violent reaction->repeat intensified.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 12:21:04 pm
I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?

Okay, fine. It is true that billions of people over the course of human history have derived deep meaning from participation in communal religious life and belief in a supernatural power of some kind. You can believe that the supernatural is nonsense and still be interested in engaging with why so many people believe, why so many people are drawn to religious texts -- not just the Bible or the Quran but also the Tao and the Vedas and the Talmud and writings of Confucius. Many of those people are vastly brighter than you, many of them have wrestled long and hard with the contradictions of belief and science.

If you don't want to engage with them, fine. But insulting them because Richard Dawkins makes you feel good about yourself is not a great look.

The "why" question is simple - because they are ignorant on the true reasons why natural phenomena happen. That's why. Because in order to explain stuff they didn't understand, they invoked "it's because God said so" and that solved everything. Then they could continue to dwell in their ignorance. How can anybody appreciate that? Why would you appreciate that.

The vast majority of "God-explainable things" are God of the gaps arguments. As soon as science explains something, "yeah but it can't explain this other thing, so that must be God". As soon as that is explained through science, later, then the boundary is pushed further.

Now we hear stuff like "yeah but what caused the Big Bang? It must've been God". That's how far God was pushed back. Before, it was just "how does lightning happen? It must be God".

As far as philosophical meaning, the purpose of life and stuff like that, you don't need "God", a supernatural force to talk or think about that. You only need rational thinking and making a "telos" of your own. That's the true freedom, in fact, that No-God left us.

If you want a physical explanation for life, the "purpose" of life in itself, there might actually be a very logical one - the local decrease of entropy in the Universe is possible so that the global increase in entropy is possible.

Basically, we, as lower-entropy beings (since we're organized very well, structurally), we can increase the entropy of the Universe more by being alive than by being dead. So life might be the laws of physics' way of maximizing the increase of the entropy of the Universe. Very simple.

You don't need God for any of this. I don't see why you would bother to "study" human ignorance, unless you're a masochist. Damn, it starts to sound like fun, now that I think of it.

I am an atheist, to the bone. But raptor is flat out wrong at this debate.
However, in his defense, a big part of this anti-religious 'rage' is the racism/oppression atheists are subject to. It is a fact, atheists are a minority and are treated as weirdos. This is still a theocratic/religious society. A little more at some places ( e.g. Greece, lol )  , a little less at others.
Now does that mean you need to be a dick because others are dicks towards you? Or you need to dismiss a mental/philosophical movement just because a part of its base is radical? Of course not, on the contrary, you gotta stay open minded as you preach.
I'm just saying, i can see how this happens, it is same old endless loop that appears everywhere : social conformism->oppression->violent reaction->repeat intensified.


But I do have an open mind about "God". I can even bring arguments "pro-God". For example, in what temporal framework did the Big-Bang happen, if time started WITH the Big Bang. Because if a quantum fluctuation created the Universe, then that quantum fluctuation had to happen in a timeframe, since time allows change to happen (a quantum fluctuation to occur).

Even more, the cosmological constant value is tuned to 120 decimal places. It has a value of "almost zero", it's 0 up to the 120th decimal place, but still positive.

This draws the expansion of the Universe. Assuming a Multiverse doesn't exist (and this is a big assumption, considering the inflationary theory, the quantum decoherence multi-world view of Hugh Everett and the string theory landscape all predict a multiverse) - but if we really live in a UNIverse, then it's very very difficult to imagine that our vaccum energy is tuned up to such a precision by accident.

Then, if "God" tuned it up, you have to explain its presence. Who made up God? So you go back to the same questions, except now you replace "Universe" with "God".
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 20, 2016, 12:54:48 pm


The "why" question is simple - because they are ignorant on the true reasons why natural phenomena happen. That's why. Because in order to explain stuff they didn't understand, they invoked "it's because God said so" and that solved everything. Then they could continue to dwell in their ignorance. How can anybody appreciate that? Why would you appreciate that.



You are wrong about this, but by all means keep believing that your rigid dogma is superior to anyone else's rigid dogma.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 02:12:51 pm
You can't say "you are wrong about this" and leave it like that. When you say that, and at the same time not participate in any way saying WHY I am wrong about this, it just means you have no backing for what you're saying and instead, you pretend "you don't need to bother explaining because I wouldn't get it anyway". Now THAT is arrogant and superior.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 20, 2016, 02:28:03 pm
You can't say "you are wrong about this" and leave it like that. When you say that, and at the same time not participate in any way saying WHY I am wrong about this, it just means you have no backing for what you're saying and instead, you pretend "you don't need to bother explaining because I wouldn't get it anyway". Now THAT is arrogant and superior.

Lots of people believe in god because, among other reasons, they want a pat explanation for natural phenomena that they can't explain. But I don't think that that's the most important reason for most people. Belief gives structure to people's moral views, to their social lives, to their relationships to people they love and care about, to their understanding of their place in the universe. Belief comforts people who are suffering and animates people to do incredible things.

Why are you tossing all that aside?
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 02:50:01 pm
Because that sounds good, but proves not to be all that good. In fact, the strongest "believers" cover up the shit they do behind the scenes yelling how "religious" they are. Same with the Republican party and their "family values".

Because behind these "beliefs", people come in, like Today did, and arrogantly point toward atheist saying "hey, look at that guy, he had 3 marriages, that's because he's an atheist, if he had my superior religious moral beliefs, he would be happily married from the get-go".

Because moral views can be derived from rational thinking, science, common sense and good-will and respect for other people. Scientific facts should be used to promote morality. If we conclude a fetus is not a living human, or that it doesn't feel pain or anything whatsoever up until week 12 (imaginary number), then we should use that science-backed fact in order to decide the morality of abortions. Same with age of consent and on and on we go. Science can back up the moral decisions we make in terms of legislature.

Instead, religious people try to push their "religious holy book"-driven agenda that means essentially nothing. It means a book written by someone says so and so. Has no relevance on actual real facts whatsoever, it just represents someone's PURELY subjective opinion, based on no facts.

Belief also creates the false hope of an afterlife, diminishing the importance of this life. In a real case, a little girl killed herself because her dad was killed (I don't remember exactly how) but she wanted to go to Heaven to meet him (literally, she truly believed that) so she killed herself.

Belief is also used by scammers to "cure cancer" by taking all the money of "true believers". Just watch the John Oliver show on televangelists.

So all in all, belief diminishes the only life we have, this one.

They should have good relationships with the people they love and care about BECAUSE it's the moral thing to do, and because they love them, not because there's an almighty God up there and you will suffer if you mistreat these people. If you need a scary God figure in the sky to love people, then you're immoral to begin with, and you don't love them anyway. So it diminishes true, authentic love.

Understanding the place in the Universe? Why do you need God for that. YOU give your own meaning to your life. You don't need "God" for that. You don't need an imaginary figure for that. Sure, maybe it's reconforting thinking you won't die and completely dissappear forever, but so is believing in Santa Claus and the Toothfairy.

Should you be allowed to believe in God? Absolutely. There's not my place to deny you that right in any way. That's your personal thing. But from there to saying that I should be passionate about talking to religious "scholars", it sounds to me like you're trying to force me to do something I'm not interested in, and if I'm not, you're taking offense to that and saying "how can you not be?! you're bad!".

See how these things turn around?

So no, you don't need "God" for that. Obviously this is my opinion, but I would say it's a pretty logical one.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 03:25:21 pm
You can't say "you are wrong about this" and leave it like that. When you say that, and at the same time not participate in any way saying WHY I am wrong about this, it just means you have no backing for what you're saying and instead, you pretend "you don't need to bother explaining because I wouldn't get it anyway". Now THAT is arrogant and superior.

It's not arrogant and superior.  It's the best he can do for you because as you have stated you think studying religion is nonsense.  So, when you make a completely unfounded claim that is wrong... what more can we do but say you are wrong?  It's a fascinating question why people believe in god.  You make a very strong statement as if you know why people believe in god.  BUT... You don't believe in god.  You also don't believe in studying religion or why people believe in god.  So by what authority do you have to make such a claim?  It's certainly not true on a personal level (because you don't believe in god) and it's certainly not true on an academic level (because you think studying why people believe in god is silly). 

The only place it's true is on a personal level as far is it relates to why you don't practice religion.  You don't practice religion because you think it's just a childish explanation for natural phenomena.  That is true.  But really how often are people who don't study the topic correct about someone elses motivation for why they believe in something?   

I mean why do people want welfare or a social safety net?  There are two people you might ask.  You might get an answer on a personal level from someone on welfare who needs and wants the social safety net in place.  You might get an answer from a political scientist who studies welfare systems of govt.  But you aren't gonna get a reliable answer from someone who has neither experienced welfare or studied the topic and doesn't support it.  You will get some insulting answer along the lines of "It's because they want a handout and have been made dependent on the government teet".   

You are a very contradictory dude because you say things like this:

I am not interested in "studying" such a topic, of a religious background. I'm not interested in what people believe is the source of a lightning, either the hammer of Thor or Zeus throwing down lightning towards Earth, or God being angry about sodomites, or anything else whatsoever.

What I'm interested is what is true and how that can be explained, rationally, and based on facts. So you would have to apologize my complete lack of interest in discussing nonsense. Why would I care about religious beliefs, behaviors and institutions? Why should that matter for anybody?
Quote

I don't see why you would bother to "study" human ignorance, unless you're a masochist.

I don't have a problem with these statements.  You could have worded them a little more respectfully but besides that I can respect and actually understand your position....

BUT.... You can't hold this position and make claims about religion and how it's the cause of so much evil and then retreat back to claiming that the study of such things is silly. 

A lot of people think things I am interested in are silly or a waste of time.  For example my own mother.  Often times we have conversations like this where I obviously disagree with her position but totally respect it and probably would have an easier time defending it:


ME:     Hey mom I have to go jump around in my weighted vest because I really want to learn to plant Right-Left so I do a proper looking windmill dunk.
MOM: Why, do you waste so much time with this jumping nonsense?  You are highly educated.  Your past your prime. Grow up.  Humans wasting time trying to jump as high as possible is silly - we have airplanes and can go to the moon, do something useful!  Humans can build machines to jump as high as they want! 
ME:    Yeah good point.  But it's fun so I am going to do it.  By the way do you want to know about this cool study that just came out about squatting and improving your vertical?
MOM:  NO! I don't care.  I don't see why that's even funded research.  Why is anyone wasting time and money doing scientific research about jumping high and dunking a basketball...  This is a sign of the apocalypse.


I don't hold it against this very hyperbolic fictionalized version of my mom for having these views.  I can totally respect them and I understand her point.  I find value in both the practice of jumping and the study of jumping but I realize I may be in the minority and that's fine.  However... If the conversation ever went like this:

ME:      I'm finna go practice dunks.
MOM:  Oh yeah, you know what you should do to jump higher.  Leg Press.  Don't squat cause when you jump you don't have a weight on your back.  Plus you can use way more weight on the legpress so obviously and logically it's better to make your legs strong to jump high.
ME:   Actually mom, your wrong.  There is a lot of people who study this and if you read their research they have came to a consensus that squatting is superior to leg press for training your vertical jump.
MOM:   People actually study this?  I refuse to waste my time engaging with people who study such nonsense. Why is anyone wasting time and money doing scientific research about jumping high and dunking a basketball...  This is a sign of the apocalypse


See the difference?  The second version is inconsistent.  She makes statements that are logical (leg press allows more weight) just like you do about religion (religious justification for murder makes it easier and increases it's occurrence significantly OR people believe in god because it gives them an lazy explanation for phenomena that they can't explain scientifically)...  But when I remind her that this is an actual field of study and tons of time and hours of research has been poured into this and refutes the concepts that she states as obvious facts - she retreats to reminding me how silly it is to study such things.

This is why its difficult debating with you.  You have an inconsistent viewpoint.  The moment you care enough to make serious statements about religion you become a religious scholar and can no longer claim that the study of such topics is silly.  This is why what you are doing is (dare I say) RELIGIOUS...  You make statements about religion.  You believe them.  The are logical just like a lot of religious 'facts' (there must be god cause otherwise who made the universe).  But... when called out about your statements by people who have spent time scientifically studying the issue you retreat to an anti-intellectual attack on the study of the topic... You don't have to like studying the topic...  But if you don't you can't cling to your beliefs about them unless you rely on faith...

Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 20, 2016, 03:35:24 pm
raptor all you're doing is putting up straw men.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 03:52:53 pm
*********
This debate has really gone off the rails...  I just have one more question...

 Do you know any religious people or any physicists?

Because your statement about religion existing so people can have explanations for what they can't explain with science is really pretty backwards... It's really quite the opposite.  I know lots of religious non-scientists.  They can't explain hardly anything with science.  They can't explain how their car works or how their computer turns on... But they don't say god did it.  They say science did it.  They have total faith in science as an explanation for physical phenomena.   That's sorta how modern religious non-scientists are.  Your model may have been true thousands of years ago when scientists couldn't explain any phenomena - but at this point science has explained and created so much that laypeople take it by faith that what they can't explain probably has been or will be explained by science...

In fact besides the "scientific" question of what caused the universe to exist I don't see most religious people using god as an explanation for scientific uncertainty...  Most religious people arrive at their beliefs not because they need an explanation for natural phenomena but because they "feel" god's existence - it's an emotional and spiritual journey that makes their life better...   

I mean tell me - have you ever heard a religious person say "OMG I am so thankful I found god because now I don't have to worry about sleepless nights thinking about Godels incompleteness theorem or Fermi's paradox or quantum entanglement because now I have an answer to them all - god!"

That doesn't happen precisely because religious laypeople have faith in science!

On the other hand it's physicists who struggle with this.  I know a lot of troubled physicists who do what is far more similar to what you describe.  One of my favorite professors in college was my quantum mechanics professor.  He was absolutely brilliant.  He was fascinated by Loschmidt's paradox and he was actually one of the first people in the 70s and 80s who built detectors for quantum entanglement. 

 I remember when he was explaining to me how as a young scientist he was so troubled by the EPR paradox and how it just didn't make sense for him and his worldview - how it just destroyed everything and it just made him feel like nothing was true.  He basically explained to me how after awhile he began to see this beauty in what appears as a violation of everything and evidence that our universe is just so much crazier than we think it is...  He even stated that it gave him a reverence for our universe or for "god" in some sense.  I'm not saying he started going to church or a mosque or believed in a personal god by any means... but just that his scientific work in explaining the natural world increased his reverence for it such that it made something like "god" necessary and comforting...

Basically, what's happened is the tables have been turned.  One thousand years ago that natural world was completely fucking puzzling to lay people so they needed god to explain it.  It was a little less puzzling to scientists so they needed religion a little less and butted up against the dogma...

Today it's the opposite.  Science has explained so much so well that educated non-physical scientists have consistently gotten scientific explanations for natural phenomena to such a degree that they now assume any phenomena they don't understand can also be concisely and clearly explained by science.  This faith in science means they don't need god as an explanation for the natural world (they still may believe in religion for a myriad of other reasons - emotional, spiritual, cultural - but not as a substitute for scientific explanation). 

Now it's the physicists who are more puzzled by the natural world. They are the ones who are constantly being shocked and having what made sense no longer possible - their model of the world is under attack by scientific experiment.   That the universe is so puzzling to them gives them a sense or reverence for the natural world - what you could describe as a belief in god...  It's why I became a physics major and now a scientist - because the feeling truly studying the unexplainable and exploring our universe for understanding is akin to the feeling you get in church - I feel like science is gods work!

*As an aside - I realize Richard Dawkins is a scientist.  But he isn't a physical scientist which illustrates my point perfectly.  It's why biologists (not medical doctors) often are hostile in their rejection of god - because science has answered their greatest question about where man came from.  Biologists consider the fact the evolution is somewhat of a solved question reason enough not to believe in god and are hostile to people who reject evolution.  Physicists on the other hand study far harder topics.  The study the universe itself.   And don't get me wrong - I'm not just saying that it's because their is more that science can't explain "yet" that causes them to be less hostile to religion.  Physicists realize that while it's truly amazing that our brains that evolved to throw bananas at each other as apes can now study the solar system there is no guarantee that we are capable of ever comprehending our universe.  This is what my professor explained to me.  That if the universe is simply not comprehend-able by our tiny brains then it starts to seem that the universe is superior to us - that the universe is god...  This is why I saw Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson speak at a conference when I was in college and RD was an ass and incredibly hostile and NGT was humble and nuanced.  Neither is a religious man by any means - but RD basically called those who are not athiests backwards and stupid while NGT rejected the atheist label - is a label for non-belief is a bit silly and had a respect for religion and his own sort of spiritual peace that he would die and become part of the universe again (not exactly exciting for me but he seemed to think it was awesome that the particles that he was made of were made in a star and would one day be part of a plant)...   To very different outlooks and maybe a coincidence but the one who isn't hostile to religion is far smarter than Richard Dawkins and far smarter than all of us...





Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 04:00:15 pm
Because behind these "beliefs", people come in, like Today did, and arrogantly point toward atheist saying "hey, look at that guy, he had 3 marriages, that's because he's an atheist, if he had my superior religious moral beliefs, he would be happily married from the get-go".

Really bro?  You really think that that is what I implied by my statement?  In the same statement pretty clear that the reason he had to get married three times is because he has an insufferable personality.  I've also been open on the forum about how I look up to Lebron as a role model for marrying his highschool sweetheart despite fame because I've struggled with infidelity and temptation despite the fact that the little professional and athletic success provides me with far less temptation in the form of beautiful women than what LBJ has to deal with...

Really though... Bravo.  You read my statement and then you took quite a leap of faith...    

Good luck in your journey!
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 20, 2016, 04:06:06 pm
Well, that's what it looked like - by the way, how do you know he has an "insufferable personality"? Have you dated him? Are you a woman and tried to "be" with him? I don't think so. So how do you know what kind of "personal personality" he has? No way of knowing, you're just projecting something over him just because you dislike him. And because you dislike him, you project your "dislikement" over his personal love-life like that's a fact, because you happen to dislike him.

Tell me, is that fair?

How do you know he was married three times BECAUSE he has an insufferable personality? How do you know the reasons behind that? You don't. You're just projecting what you think of him onto his personal life. That's not cool. That's what religious people always do. And then they pretend they didn't mean it, that they meant something else, and so on and so forth. Why not just admit it directly?

See, this is what bothers me about religious people.

PS. By the way, what does Richard Dawkins personality, whatever that is ("good" or "bad") have to do with all this? Why ever bring that up unless for making this statement. In reality, you really really wanted to say something bad about him, and you couldn't help yourself from doing it. If he liked to drive fast or drink, you would've said "that fucking maniac the speeds on the highway" or "he drinks a lot, with his terrible personality". Whatever small thing you could've found, you would've said it.

Now you can come in and say "you say the same things about religious people, that they say about how moral they are and then you turn around and pick on their personal lives". It's a different thing - Dawkins doesn't come in and say how "moral" he is. He is simply saying that he is interested in what's true in the world/Universe we live in, and that's pretty much it. He doesn't come in and say "if you don't believe in my God, you will burn in Hell for eternity!" (interesting how finite sins give you infinite pain, isn't it? How benevolent this God is!)
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on July 20, 2016, 05:41:21 pm
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeRfv9xWHNAIKQRXaExR4ESaZAIihgO436m2Qd3sFTZ6XRQxttm_fr9Hs)
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 20, 2016, 06:07:17 pm
Well, that's what it looked like - by the way, how do you know he has an "insufferable personality"? Have you dated him? Are you a woman and tried to "be" with him? I don't think so. So how do you know what kind of "personal personality" he has? No way of knowing, you're just projecting something over him just because you dislike him. And because you dislike him, you project your "dislikement" over his personal love-life like that's a fact, because you happen to dislike him.

Tell me, is that fair?

How do you know he was married three times BECAUSE he has an insufferable personality? How do you know the reasons behind that? You don't. You're just projecting what you think of him onto his personal life. That's not cool. That's what religious people always do. And then they pretend they didn't mean it, that they meant something else, and so on and so forth. Why not just admit it directly?

See, this is what bothers me about religious people.

PS. By the way, what does Richard Dawkins personality, whatever that is ("good" or "bad") have to do with all this? Why ever bring that up unless for making this statement. In reality, you really really wanted to say something bad about him, and you couldn't help yourself from doing it. If he liked to drive fast or drink, you would've said "that fucking maniac the speeds on the highway" or "he drinks a lot, with his terrible personality". Whatever small thing you could've found, you would've said it.

Now you can come in and say "you say the same things about religious people, that they say about how moral they are and then you turn around and pick on their personal lives". It's a different thing - Dawkins doesn't come in and say how "moral" he is. He is simply saying that he is interested in what's true in the world/Universe we live in, and that's pretty much it. He doesn't come in and say "if you don't believe in my God, you will burn in Hell for eternity!" (interesting how finite sins give you infinite pain, isn't it? How benevolent this God is!)

Seriously? Stop. 

Your not making sense any more.  Do you know what insufferable means?  It means intolerable and arrogant.

First of all I have met Richard Dawkins.  But why do I have to have met him or be a woman that's dated him to know he is insufferble?  I know you have an insufferable personality and I have never met you!  I know you make racist hateful statements about draymond green cause of how he plays basketball... That's enough for me. 

Second, Richard Dawkins is famous.  You don't have to meet famous people to know about their personality.  By all accounts Michael Jordan is a hyper competitive asshole.  By all accounts Kim Kardashian is a bit shallow.  These are not a stretch by any measure.  Famous people are interviewed, written about and accessible to us all.

Maybe I could surmise he is insufferable by article about him written by an atheist that quotes another atheist:

"Mr Dawkins has always been pugnacious. When I interviewed the philosopher Daniel Dennett, a professor at Tufts University and a fellow leading member of an atheist group that calls itself the Brights, he described himself as being the “good cop” to Mr Dawkins’s “bad cop”. Mr Dennett conceded: “Richard is so hostile and aggressive that he’s unsympathetic.”"

http://m.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/richard-dawkins-has-gone-so-far-hes-lost-even-his-atheist-friends

Are you outraged that the author called him pugnacious without meeting him?

Seriously stop trying to bully me!  I'm not debating my motivations for why I make jokes or say things.  I claim that I made a pretty harmless and factually true joke about Richard Dawkins because I thought it was funny!  You can claim that this is a function of me being religious and that my religiousness (which is pretty much non-existent) makes me want to say bad things about him so bad that I just can't help it as bad as I try... But that's ridiculous.  That's arrogant.  Your trying to argue with me about what goes on in my head and ascribe it to me being religious... So you realize how silly this is?  If you want to debate actual arguments fine but there is nothing more worthless than you telling what's actually going on in my head and how terrible it is... I kinda have the upper head on you as far as knowledge of my thoughts and intent... 

Why don't you instead attack the point I made.  It wasn't that strong really.  The point was pretty simple.  It was that Richard Dawkins claims to be a strict adherent to logic and believes "fairy tales" and "superstitions" like religion should be eliminated from society.  Yet by all accounts he is happily married and in love with his wife.  The fact that he got married for a third time is evidence only that he enjoys being married enough not to give up on the institution.  That's fine by me.  But... My point is that love is a pretty damn irrational thing.  Logically love and romance don't really make sense.  There are really two reasons to marry and be in love.  Marriage is an institution.  It's part of our (his) culture.  It's expected that you take part in it.  And it's fun and feels really good.  Being in love is awesome... The feeling that your partner is the only person in the world for you and you want to be with them forever is absolutely great!  I'm not asking him not to be in love, in fact I encourage it.  But let's not claim it's a choice we make out of pure rationality.  Richard Dawkins would probably kill 5 strangers to save his wife.  Most people in love would.  That's not rational or logic and can even have bad effects on society!  But love is part of being human - it's incredibly fulfilling and comforting and feels good and if not practiced too extremely doesn't really hurt anyone else...

Kinda sounds like religion to me.  Something you do cause it feels good provides fulfillment and is part of your culture...

That was my point.  That RD is a bit hypocritical when he claims to follow a life governed only by logic that religion is not compatible with...

But I mean he is the same man that tweeted that mitt Romney was an idiot for believing in Mormonism but had no criticism at all of Obamas Christianity and even justified it... Because he isn't truly an all out defender of a life governed by logic and reason - he just plays that guy when it suits him.  And it's career suicide to say that Obama is unfit because he is stupid enough to believe in the bible but snarky and acceptable to attack the less popular politician who is a member of a minority religion.  Attacking Mormonism and being incredibly rude about it will get people to realize your insufferable but won't offend half the world. 

I find this to be in poor taste.  I don't blame him for not going after Obama.  But I'd rather him say I'm an atheist but the world is still so damn religious that I'm not gonna after the faith of politicians.  But instead he attacks the one which is easy to attack.  I'm especially annoyed by this because I've seen him talk and one of his major points was that theists are also atheists to ever religion but theirs and that Christianity is no more logically valid than a belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster...  I guess it's true except when your criticizing popular American politicians...



Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 21, 2016, 03:21:58 am
Seriously? Stop. 

Your not making sense any more.  Do you know what insufferable means?  It means intolerable and arrogant.

First of all I have met Richard Dawkins.  But why do I have to have met him or be a woman that's dated him to know he is insufferble?

Because you put it in the context of the reason why it didn't work out for him, in his marriages. That's why. If you would've said "I have met Richard Dawkins and he's an arrogant asshole", then that's perfectly acceptable. That's your opinion, you're entitled to an opinion, and there's no problem whatsoever with it. However, you sneakely implied that he's an asshole and therefore it's a wonder that any woman would stay with him (that he would have any kind of happy marriage). Meaning, you projected your own feelings about him onto other people, and "set a standard" for them.

Quote
I know you have an insufferable personality and I have never met you!  I know you make racist hateful statements about draymond green cause of how he plays basketball... That's enough for me.

Really? How so? I am maintaining what I said about Draymond Green. He makes me think of a monkey playing basketball. That's how a monkey would play like, in my mind. If he would've made me think of a dolphin, or a bear, or a Gnu antelope playing basketball, I would've chosen that. It has nothing to do with racism whatsoever. In fact, it proves you're racist (yes, "you're", not "your"), since you immediately think that me saying that has to do with Green's skin color. If that's how you think, you must be racist. I could say that any player reminds me of a monkey, regardless of race - all that player has to do is act like a monkey on the basketball court. That's all. There's no "hidden agenda" behind my statement. For example, Luis Scola kind of fits the bill, but he's less aggressive and less of a piece of shit like Draymonkey Green is. Last time I checked, Scola is white. Where's my racism?

You can say it's insulting to that player that I use this terminology, and that would be perfectly acceptable. That's the whole point - I am insulting Green because he's a piece of shit that acts like an animal on the court (like Dennis Rodman did, in the past), and I dislike that. But it is NOT racist because my statement has nothing to do with his race.

Quote
Second, Richard Dawkins is famous.  You don't have to meet famous people to know about their personality.  By all accounts Michael Jordan is a hyper competitive asshole.  By all accounts Kim Kardashian is a bit shallow.  These are not a stretch by any measure.  Famous people are interviewed, written about and accessible to us all.

True. The problem is projecting that that would be a reason for his failed marriages.

Quote
Maybe I could surmise he is insufferable by article about him written by an atheist that quotes another atheist:

"Mr Dawkins has always been pugnacious. When I interviewed the philosopher Daniel Dennett, a professor at Tufts University and a fellow leading member of an atheist group that calls itself the Brights, he described himself as being the “good cop” to Mr Dawkins’s “bad cop”. Mr Dennett conceded: “Richard is so hostile and aggressive that he’s unsympathetic.”"

http://m.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/richard-dawkins-has-gone-so-far-hes-lost-even-his-atheist-friends

Are you outraged that the author called him pugnacious without meeting him?

No, that is his opinion. The same as I am not outraged by your opinion of him. I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. Dennett is entitled to his opinion just as much as you and me are, and that's perfectly acceptable. Again, it goes to do implying that "wow, it's amazing a woman would be with this guy" like you know how he acts with women in his personal life. That's the kind of projection that bothers me. Maybe he suffered years behind the scenes, maybe she cheated on him, maybe this maybe that. There's no way you can know that. Only they know that, and you shouldn't comment on people's personal lives in such broad terms. If more details would become available about how Dawkins would abuse his wife or anything like that, then I'm with you. But until then, it's just your projection onto his personal life, which is very uncool.

Quote
Seriously stop trying to bully me!  I'm not debating my motivations for why I make jokes or say things.  I claim that I made a pretty harmless and factually true joke about Richard Dawkins because I thought it was funny!  You can claim that this is a function of me being religious and that my religiousness (which is pretty much non-existent) makes me want to say bad things about him so bad that I just can't help it as bad as I try... But that's ridiculous.  That's arrogant.  Your trying to argue with me about what goes on in my head and ascribe it to me being religious... So you realize how silly this is?  If you want to debate actual arguments fine but there is nothing more worthless than you telling what's actually going on in my head and how terrible it is... I kinda have the upper head on you as far as knowledge of my thoughts and intent... 

Yes, you do. But that's like you saying to me that I'm "racist" with my comments towards Green. I just presented to you, above, what my "thoughts and intents" are, in my head, when I'm saying that. I hope it's clear now.

What do you mean by "factually true joke"? According to whom? Last time I checked, opinions about the personality of someone are not "factual",  but "subjective".

Quote
Why don't you instead attack the point I made.  It wasn't that strong really.  The point was pretty simple.  It was that Richard Dawkins claims to be a strict adherent to logic and believes "fairy tales" and "superstitions" like religion should be eliminated from society.  Yet by all accounts he is happily married and in love with his wife.  The fact that he got married for a third time is evidence only that he enjoys being married enough not to give up on the institution.  That's fine by me.  But... My point is that love is a pretty damn irrational thing.  Logically love and romance don't really make sense.  There are really two reasons to marry and be in love.  Marriage is an institution.  It's part of our (his) culture.  It's expected that you take part in it.  And it's fun and feels really good.  Being in love is awesome... The feeling that your partner is the only person in the world for you and you want to be with them forever is absolutely great!  I'm not asking him not to be in love, in fact I encourage it.  But let's not claim it's a choice we make out of pure rationality.  Richard Dawkins would probably kill 5 strangers to save his wife.  Most people in love would.  That's not rational or logic and can even have bad effects on society!  But love is part of being human - it's incredibly fulfilling and comforting and feels good and if not practiced too extremely doesn't really hurt anyone else...

I find that pretty rational and logic - to protect someone that is important to you, that is part of your family, basically. We can't live in a completely robotic society. You can now say "oh, so it's not 100% logic in life, is it?". Well of course it isn't. The point isn't that you should be a robot, a "Vulcan" from Star Trek, where logic is the way to go all the way, all the time. Here, we're talking about what society should value in terms of evolution of the society, of technology, and of legislation based on logic. Then you have different circumstances, where you should take the human nature under consideration.

Again, you come to me like I ever said you shouldn't be allowed to "believe in God". That's not true at all (I said so above, in another post). It's not a "problem" that you believe in God, the only problem is that people try to impose their religion onto others and onto legislature (look at abortion clinics attacks and abortion legislation, for example). A scientific problem should be solved by a scientific process, not by some arbitrary "holy book".

Quote
Kinda sounds like religion to me.  Something you do cause it feels good provides fulfillment and is part of your culture...

That was my point.  That RD is a bit hypocritical when he claims to follow a life governed only by logic that religion is not compatible with...

But I mean he is the same man that tweeted that mitt Romney was an idiot for believing in Mormonism but had no criticism at all of Obamas Christianity and even justified it... Because he isn't truly an all out defender of a life governed by logic and reason - he just plays that guy when it suits him.  And it's career suicide to say that Obama is unfit because he is stupid enough to believe in the bible but snarky and acceptable to attack the less popular politician who is a member of a minority religion.  Attacking Mormonism and being incredibly rude about it will get people to realize your insufferable but won't offend half the world. 

I'm not aware of the Obama story. However, about mormonism, and Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN4M8PvpmW4

Quote
I find this to be in poor taste.  I don't blame him for not going after Obama.  But I'd rather him say I'm an atheist but the world is still so damn religious that I'm not gonna after the faith of politicians.  But instead he attacks the one which is easy to attack.  I'm especially annoyed by this because I've seen him talk and one of his major points was that theists are also atheists to ever religion but theirs and that Christianity is no more logically valid than a belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster...  I guess it's true except when your criticizing popular American politicians...

I think we can be pretty much sure Obama is an atheist, and pretends to be religious only to appeal to the very religious American voters. Which is sad, that being true to being an atheist in America gets penalized heavily by the same people that pretend they are so moral because they're religious and if you're an atheist "what stops you from murdering people?". It's a sad reality.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 21, 2016, 04:14:03 am
I take it your an Obama fan and thus are completely sure of his athiesm.  Projecting much? 

No it's probably me.  Your right.  You got me.  I'm hyper religious.  And if anyone is not religious I project my negative views about atheism on them!  Sorry I apologize!  It's completely unreasonable that an insufferable asshole might have problems maintaining interpersonal relationships.  If Dawkins was religious I would probably encourage my sister to marry him!  I would say "yes by all accounts he is an insufferable asshole, but those are only people's opinions and even if they are right it's totally possible that someone is an asshole in every facet of life except for in their romantic relationships.  Dawkins turns off the asshole switch and is most likely a concientious and sensitive guy when it comes to his relationships!  You should go for it!

You also got me on being racist!  I'm racist and it's completely unreasonable for me to assume that you using a racist slur to describe a black player is racist!  If I wasn't so racist I would naturally think that your racial slur had nothing to do with race and was just purely a physical description.  It makes no sense that the reason he reminds you of a monkey is because your subconsciously racist!  It makes total sense that when you were told that your using a racist and offensive slur to describe a black player that you didn't apologize and say "I didn't intend to be racist I actually just thought that was his spirit animal but I apologize for those I offended and I will choose less inflammatory words so I don't use the same terms that racists use".  It makes total sense that instead you doubled down and continued to use racist language.  My finding this offensive or racist is clearly the result of my racism - maybe it comes from me being mixed that I'm so confused about whether I'm white or black that I just came out totally racist against both my ethnicities! 

You win.  I'm a racist hyper religious guy who just can't stand athiesm or black or white people so I project my feelings on them.   Clearly you have taken psychology 101 and are an expert at determining when someone is projecting.  You win!
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 21, 2016, 04:24:55 am
Finally! Thank you.

/sarcasm

PS. Seriously, that's the best you could do? Apparently, you ran out of serious arguments so you now portrait yourself as the "guy that took the high road, since there was no way of convincing my inferior self that I'm wrong". Great. More arrogance on your part.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 21, 2016, 04:45:34 am
Finally! Thank you.

/sarcasm

PS. Seriously, that's the best you could do? Apparently, you ran out of serious arguments so you now portrait yourself as the "guy that took the high road, since there was no way of convincing my inferior self that I'm wrong". Great. More arrogance on your part.

No I just got tired of a white guy doubling down on racist offensive speech.  And then calling me out for being racist.  I'm a biracial dude living in America.  I get shit for being black and being white.  I got stopped by police and handcuffed and thrown in the back of their car cause they said I looked like a Hispanic criminal.  So I get it for being Hispanic too I guess. 

I don't need to deal with racism on the Internet as well.  They say arguing on the Internet is a waste of time.  I don't totally agree.  But arguing with someone that uses racial slurs and defends their right to use them and suggests your racist for being offended by it is certainly a waste of time.  I'm patient too - if you didn't know monkey is a racist term now you do.  You have been told by multiple people.  It's not a language or cultural barrier that causes you to continue to use racial slurs.  It's you.  And frankly that's not someone I can debate with.  Continue to think what you what you want.

Continue being arrogant.  Continue using racial slurs. Continue to have faith in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  But don't actually study physics.  Don't get in the trenches and actually do hours of problem sets and learn about pdes and statistical mechanics. Leave that for the idiots like me. Just pontificate about the implications of cosmological theory and how it's all that you need for your worldview even though you don't understand it in the slightest and believe it only because smart people say it's true...

You have a lot more faith than me.  You continue being you.  But just don't do it with meSss
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 21, 2016, 05:05:50 am
It's not my concern that the term "monkey" has been used by racist people. You can't hold me responsible for the racism in your country. I'm using the term "monkey" in the way I described, and it has nothing to do with race. Hence, it's not racist. But you keep saying it's racist. I can't do anything about that, about the fact that you don't want to listen to me, and keep on pounding that I'm using racist terms.

Don't judge me for the way others have used that term, in your own country.

Next thing, how do you know what I study or not study? What I do or don't do in my life? Sounds similar to the projection over Dawkins' personal life. You seem to do that a lot.

You don't live my life. You don't know what I must do to maintain my home, my mom and my sister, with the money I make. Stop being so fucking arrogant and think I have the resources to do "hours of problem sets". Stop thinking I live in your rich country. Stop making all these assumptions from your position of superiority.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 21, 2016, 09:47:35 am
It's not my concern that the term "monkey" has been used by racist people. You can't hold me responsible for the racism in your country. I'm using the term "monkey" in the way I described, and it has nothing to do with race. Hence, it's not racist. But you keep saying it's racist. I can't do anything about that, about the fact that you don't want to listen to me, and keep on pounding that I'm using racist terms.

Don't judge me for the way others have used that term, in your own country.

Next thing, how do you know what I study or not study? What I do or don't do in my life? Sounds similar to the projection over Dawkins' personal life. You seem to do that a lot.

You don't live my life. You don't know what I must do to maintain my home, my mom and my sister, with the money I make. Stop being so fucking arrogant and think I have the resources to do "hours of problem sets". Stop thinking I live in your rich country. Stop making all these assumptions from your position of superiority.

No it is your problem.  You don't get to call a black person in my country a racist slur.  You don't get to redefine the term.  If you do it out of ignorance I'll give you a pass.  But once you realize that your talking to an American person about another American person and using racial slurs you change your language.  That's called basic respect. 

You remind me of a camel.  The camel in "how the camel got his hump" is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy.  But if you tell me camel is a racial slur directed at Romanians and every time I say that it triggers a response about years of oppression you guys faced it is ON ME to use a different word!   It's not on you to assume that I somehow use it differently.  It's called basic respect.  You don't have it.  That's why I "gave up". 

Seriously if you want people to not think your an asshole don't ever tell someone they are projecting. First of all the whole concept comes from Freudian pseudoscience.  Second it requires you to know the persons insecurities - you don't and it's arrogant and insulting to assume you do.  Third, it's not falsifiable.  It's the equivalent of arguing with someone who believes in a devil who can control your thoughts and actions and brings him up when you disagree.  Any criticism I make of someone can just be me projecting my insecurities onto that person - you can make that claim but it's not part of a debate.  In a debate you refute the claim - you don't need to tell the person that they only believed this cause they are projecting...

Finally.  Sorry you from a poor country man.  But I don't really care or see how that relates to physics.  How do I know what you study or don't study?  Sure I don't know exactly your academic background... But given your copious surface level posts about physics riddled with common mistakes that someone without actual mathematical training would make - I'm pretty confident that I would take the bet that you haven't had training in physics or math. 

Oh that's cause you can't afford to go to colleges cause you live in a poor country?  Again, I don't care.  Life isn't fair.  There isn't infinite time.  Maybe you can't study physics properly.  Doesn't give you the right to pontificate about things you don't understand or claim that their is a rational basis to something you don't understand and only believe cause someone else told you.  It makes your argument fall apart when you bring up physics as an alternative to religion and faith when you only believe in the model from physics because you have faith in the smart person that described it.

There is lots of things I don't have time to study.  That's life.  But I don't pretend to be an expert in them.  I don't read about the arguments of linguists about a language and parrot them if I don't first out in the time to get a basic understanding of the languages structure.  That's just a requirement people hold themselves to.  Don't talk big about stuff you don't understand.  It's part of that don't be an arrogant asshole thing.  And sorry there is no clause for "if your from a country and can't afford to study the field then an exception is granted and by all means obtain a surface level knowledge with no actual understanding of the model and describe it as rigorously supported when you have no idea why it is".

It's probably true that my life and opportunity is better than yours... I was lucky to be born with the chance to live in a wealthy country.  But I guarentee if you were born into my life I - you woulld still find something to complain about!  That's who you are.  I wish it weren't so.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 21, 2016, 10:03:57 am
Now you're even more arrogant than before. Just when I was thinking it's not possible. Basically, I would say each sentence is filled with self-proclaimed superiority.

I guess that's what your superior religious morality drives into you. Funny how you talk about me talking about projection and then you doing the same. Interesting how this works.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: T0ddday on July 21, 2016, 12:53:25 pm
Now you're even more arrogant than before. Just when I was thinking it's not possible. Basically, I would say each sentence is filled with self-proclaimed superiority.

I guess that's what your superior religious morality drives into you. Funny how you talk about me talking about projection and then you doing the same. Interesting how this works.

No I don't think about better than you.  I'm just not as much of an ass as you.  If something is offensive to you and just about everyone in your country I won't say it.  I won't ask you to parse my non racist intent and put the burden on you.  That's about it. 

And I don't think your projecting anything.   I'm making no claims about how your intent is an indirect effect of your religiosity or atheism.  I'm just a scientist making educated guesses - I'm wrong sometimes about them but I'm right more often than wrong.  For example when you say racist things my educated guess is that your racist.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Perhaps your just insensitive.  But it's a good guess - generally people dropping racist slurs are racist.  I'm not pretending to know what's going on inside your head - I'm focused on the effect of what comes out your mouth (or your keyboard I guess).  From the evidence you have posted your a better single leg jumper than me.  From what you have posted I can infer that you don't have training in physics or math.  Maybe not.  Maybe your just trolling and pretending to post in such a way, I can be wrong but I'm gonna make my best guesses when I find the evidence strong...

Listen I don't think I'm reaching you. 

How about I just apologize for insulting Richard Dawkins.  You spent a lot of time explaining how arrogant you felt it was that I jumped to the conclusion that being an insufferable ass might make marriage hard.  Your right - I don't know how his personality changes in his love life.  Maybe he's an awesome partner and women have mistreated him... Shoot maybe the abuse he has suffered from women is actually WHY he is an insufferable guy... Maybe it's a sensitive topic for him.  It doesn't do any good for me to then make a joke about his failures in his love life - that will only make him more of an asshole and if I'm critical of it why would I want to be part of the cause?  Your offended on his behalf as well that I conflated his personal life with his professional character and for that I apologize to him and I apologize to you.  In fact I will make a better effort not to tease people who don't have the most affable personalities about their personal lives - it could be a source of pain and a cause of their character.  Thanks for calling me out.  Sorry.

Now how bout you apologize for using a racial slur about someone from my community?  How about you agree to avoid using the word monkey in reference to black people (or just people in general) because no matter your intent it is a word that people find very offensive and does not make people like eachother.  Consider that someone might read only the post where you say "I hate that monkey" and not your subsequent posts describing how you didn't intend it as its colloquially used but as a reference to his style of play.  Consider the current environment in the United States with racist politics, police shooting black people, black people shooting police, etc.  You think a black person reading your first post is going to make things better or worse?  Maybe you can try and change for the better like I will.  Otherwise we didn't get much out of this exchange except for you thinking I'm really religious which is funny.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on July 21, 2016, 12:58:46 pm
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrxAGkRsuyREf1Hxlt8mzaS3Wls4JBo1sBIklB7TGuw3xFWGUf9A)

Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 21, 2016, 03:27:50 pm
lol at the idea that "monkey" is only racist in the US.

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2015/07/18/3682113/russia-racism-frimpong-red-card-monkey-chants/
http://screamer.deadspin.com/racist-dutch-soccer-fans-throw-inflatable-banana-at-bla-1688283860
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130886
http://www.ibtimes.com/ugly-side-italian-football-blatant-widespread-racism-1935667

oh and here's one from romania: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/08/striker-wellington-apology-fan-threw-banana
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 21, 2016, 03:29:18 pm
It's not my concern that the term "monkey" has been used by racist people. You can't hold me responsible for the racism in your country. I'm using the term "monkey" in the way I described, and it has nothing to do with race. Hence, it's not racist. But you keep saying it's racist. I can't do anything about that, about the fact that you don't want to listen to me, and keep on pounding that I'm using racist terms.


THIS IS NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS, IDIOT
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 21, 2016, 07:02:40 pm
It's not my concern that the term "monkey" has been used by racist people. You can't hold me responsible for the racism in your country. I'm using the term "monkey" in the way I described, and it has nothing to do with race. Hence, it's not racist. But you keep saying it's racist. I can't do anything about that, about the fact that you don't want to listen to me, and keep on pounding that I'm using racist terms.


THIS IS NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS, IDIOT

Again, it's not my concern that you skew the words I say to make me look racist. That term had nothing about race in it - it was all to do with how he acted on the floor. That's all. Last time I checked, he could care less about how I call him - he's taking his millions of dollars and not giving a shit about how I call him.

Solve your racist problems in your country, and my term will be taken as the insult that it is, and not a racial slur. Not my problem you guys are racists over there. If you weren't, the term would've been taken as an insult. Just like you called me "idiot", I have the free speech to insult Green, so I'm going to do exactly that.

By the way, it's interesting how you guys turned this topic around from religion to this.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 22, 2016, 05:44:00 am
OK, so let me try to clarify a few things:

First off, I'm not in the best mental state. Treat that as purely informative, not an excuse. Basically, take that in, and then completely ignore it.

Now,

1) Regarding the "monkey" comment - I still maintain that. I perfectly understand what you're saying. You're saying "maybe you used that term as purely an insult with no racial connotation whatsoever, but due to the history of racists using that exact word to torment black people in my country, and the country where Draymond Green is, it's easy to see how that can be viewed as a racist remark, before anything else. Even if you didn't mean it like that, it's at the very least "uncool" to use that term considering you know this is the situation, and you should apologize for using that term".

To which I simply disagree. I don't think I shouldn't be allowed to use a term differently simply because other people used it in a racist context. Judge them, blame them, but that's it. I'm not responsible for what they did. This is my honest opinion (I genuinely think this, I'm not trying to denature anything in any way). Now, one thing you could say is "still, even if it's not racist, you're still insulting Green terribly". That's exactly my intent. He insults the way I see basketball, by his style of "play". When he acts the way he does on the court, kicking people in the balls several times, acting like a crazy guy, being "aggressive", that is insulting to me. That makes me dislike something that I usually enjoy - basketball. So then, I have the right to insult him.

If you say "OK, you have the freedom not to watch basketball if you dislike it". Well, I want to watch quality basketball, and because he's on the GSW, he prevents me from enjoying that. Also, he has the freedom not to read my insulting comments. I bet he exercised that freedom and he doesn't even know I exist. I'm irrelevant for him, and he makes in one day the money I make in 1 year. So I wouldn't be too upset in Mr. Green's name.

This is what I honestly believe, and of course, you're free to say "no, you're a fucking racist, you use racist remarks and pretend they're simple insults, this is not "how language works" and so on". Guess what? That's your opinion, and it's perfectly fine. My opinion is the one stated here. Then we can say we fundamentally disagree.

2) Speaking about God - again, I never said you shouldn't be allowed to "believe" in God. Heck, I think we all would want our death not to be final, to be a greater purpose of our lives, to continue our life in another form and so on and so forth. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. In fact, looking at biology and neuroscience, we're just a bunch of neurons (in terms of our perceptions and personality) that, through complicated firing patterns, create "us". Modify that, and we're "someone else". Once these neurons die, "we" die.

However, God can play a significant part for people that are hopeless. If you're hopeless, if you have a terminal disease, if you're on the verge of suicide, believing there's "God" out there and listens to your prayers, that gives you a significant boost of hope, maybe completely illogical or whatever, but that hope makes the difference between you giving up to your disease and die, or giving up and committing suicide, and not doing that.

That hope that comes from just believing is very powerful, sometimes. And it makes a difference. Is that a "bad thing" because it is illogical? Because you're believing in fairy-tales? Because God was not proven by science? Absolutely not. That additional hope made the difference between you living and you dying, and should be appreciated as such.

The only problem I have is when religious people try to impose their religion on legislature or point fingers at atheist saying how immoral they are and all these things. Otherwise, no problem whatsoever. Also, when religion interferes and sabotages science. That's a big problem as well. Also, when murders and terrible stuff happens because of religion, as a primary factor. You might say "the criminals just throw their reason on religion, but that's not the real reason". Maybe, but without a religion there would be no such "crutches" for terrorists to use. There would be other things that could be debunked/fought with.

"God" is something abstract that you can't fight with. Children are raised from very little and programmed to believe in "God" and they're corrupted indefinitely. That is wrong, and society needs to address it.

3) Toddday's personal attacks on me, from a position of superiority each and every time, are just, I don't know, very disappointing. When you see even smart people resort to these kinds of things, it's disappointing. Furthermore, I'm waiting for the specific parts where
Quote
From what you have posted I can infer that you don't have training in physics or math.

I don't want to hear these general superior accusations "I can tell you're not as educated as my superior self, so I won't even bother to point where you're wrong". Give me specifics.

It's hard for me to understand where this superiority of Toddday's comes from. I could even say you have a insufferable personality, simply because every one of your posts are condescending - you always speak from a very high horse, and are polite only with people that don't challenge you and take everything you say like, excuse the pun, "the word of God". Whenever challenged, you suddenly get on your high horse and speak (write) with this tremendously condescending "tone".

You can make the argument I do the same. Heck, some people here might say I'm more arrogant than you, in certain situations. I hear them and I could even agree with them. But it's pretty obvious (for me, at least, trying to be as objective as I can), who is riding the high horse of self-imposed superiority here.

4) Regarding your apology about what you said about Dawkins - this is not about him, I'm not his advocate. It just seems to me you're using a famous atheist to prove a point about every atheist. That's like me choosing a random guy from the Catholic church and say "he raped 100 kids, this pedophile". When confronted, I'll say "me? I never said anything about Christians! I only meant that guy was a pedophile, that's all!". See how bad this looks?

Sure, you can come in and say "it's similar to what you did with the "monkey" term - you said it was just an insult and it wasn't racist, and so am I here - I'm just talking about his personality from my perspective, there's no projection on his personal life". Yes, you can, I guess.

5) This isn't going anywhere productive. We're just here in a pissing game, trying to show the other guy he's wrong and whatnot. Not a productive discussion. This topic was supposed to be about religion, not about name-calling, insults vs racist terms, Richard Dawkins personality and condescending remarks.

This topic was about religion, and what's bad and what's good about it, from different perspectives. But as always, when the topic is about religion, tempers flare and you get a mockery about the entire subject.

And for that, we're all at fault.

PS. One thing I would like to add, in the end, is that maybe I'm simply fundamentally wrong. Maybe I'm logically wrong with some, heck, with all of my points, and I simply can't see that. That's a possibility. It wouldn't surprise me. My brain is completely fried right now. That's why I've been thinking about suicide in the last 2 years, and wanted to do it several times. Maybe I should do it. I'll get my answer about God quicker, that way. Plus I won't bother nobody anymore. In my current mental state, I feel like I need ~10 years of non-stop rest to recover.

And no, this is not an apology or anything, I'm literally saying what my current state is, I don't expect any answer whatsoever. What I'm saying is that maybe I should just give up on getting into any debates, as maybe my mind is completely blind to logic and common sense and anything else. The only thing that really bothered me wasn't the points themselves, it was that condescending "tone", and as much as my mind is fucked up, I think I'm right at least here. That tone is completely unnecessary. Of course I'm being hypocritical here too, since I sometimes use the same tone and make aggressive remarks, and yeah, I should be called out for that.

If this is true, then I must apologize for my remarks. For everything - the monkey thing, the "Sky-god" thing, everything, other things I've said. Maybe you're right and they're not appropriate, even if my intentions were not the ones received by you. If they genuinely insulted you (not because you "pretended to be insulted", but actually insulted you in a genuine, honest fashion, with no agenda behind that) - then I feel like I should apologize for that. It's something any sensible guy would do, even in my current state of mind.

This reminds me - I was talking to a friend some days ago (yes, I still have friends, one or two) - and I told him that my mind is completely gone. Then I told him "but when you say that to someone, they don't take it seriously. If you attack them or insult them 20 minutes later, they would have completely forgot you told them you're crazy. They would say "this guy is a fucking asshole"". It's always like that.

It doesn't matter. The world will go on regardless.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 22, 2016, 08:34:25 am
i can't read all that at once, but just on the racism part: raptor, you can't call someone a nigger or a kike or a slope or a wetback in english without it being racist. the term "monkey" in the context of insulting a black person is racist whether you like it or not. just because your intentions in using it are pure as the driven snow doesn't change that fact. you ARE, in fact, responsible for using language that is not offensive to other people. you can't divorce the words you use from their history. i had an gf years ago who was chilean and learning english. she loved the sound of the word "nigger." had to get mad at her to get her to stop using it, because as innocent as she was of its origins, it still has the power to wound and denigrate. the word is important, the word is outside of your head once you say it out loud or write it down.

certain other members of this forum (and god knows millions of people outside it) might whine about political correctness, but i have no sympathy for that point of view. it is not difficult to treat other people with basic respect. what you're doing is stamping your feet and crying that the meanies won't let you call anyone anything you want. same goes for everyone in the "waah the PC police are at it again" crowd. fuck those people, they prefer to maintain their power through the use of casually or aggressively degrading language over learning to treat strangers with basic human respect. fuck their discomfort, fuck their laziness, fuck their power. i say this to you straight white man to straight white man: be better.

you're right, we've gotten off the religion track on here. but it's because you continue to defend using racist speech and that's harder for me to ignore, and more important to talk about, than your rants about the religious beliefs of others.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 22, 2016, 08:40:26 am
OK, then I won't use terms in the future that might potentially be interpreted as racist, my bad. It's hard to have the same perspective from where I live.

I guess it's the same as when French call Romanians "gypsies", missing the entire point. They think they're synonyms. It's like saying "that Romanian guy made me think of a gypsy". Although that would imply being gypsy is an insult, which is a whole other case of racism in itself.
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: LBSS on July 22, 2016, 08:46:59 am
OK, then I won't use terms in the future that might potentially be interpreted as racist, my bad. It's hard to have the same perspective from where I live.

I guess it's the same as when French call Romanians "gypsies", missing the entire point. They think they're synonyms. It's like saying "that Romanian guy made me think of a gypsy". Although that would imply being gypsy is an insult, which is a whole other case of racism in itself.

 :highfive: :headbang:
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: Raptor on July 26, 2016, 08:38:25 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzgohHHQh4
Title: Re: RELIGION
Post by: John Stamos on July 26, 2016, 02:42:20 pm
Raptor, you'd probably enjoy The Amazing Atheist on YouTube.