Fikarika: To avoid this thread from derailing into the flamefest everyone is afraid will happen, I'm asking you to rewrite your post in a way in which you're not writing in a hostile tone with a preset mindset. Religious topics only work for people who can keep an open mind about different points of view, and your "you do not share my religious views therefore you're absolutely wrong and a complete twat" stance seems to show that you're clearly too narrow-minded to keep this conversation civil and productive.
I thought I'd share some pearls from your post to emphasize my point about you just spitting out insults without much of a clue as to what you're talking about.
I thought I'd share some pearls from your post to emphasize my point about you just spitting out insults without much of a clue as to what you're talking about.
Belief can only occur by insecurity.
I think you cant follow me, but people looking down at religion will maybe understand what i mean.
Neurolinguistic programming and that shit?
Cause every religious person is meant, so it is written, to save mah soul.
<&Fish>: did you just infract the toribot?
<&Fish>: you're fired
<&Fish>: you're fired
<JSnuffMARS> sounds like a drug-addiction or mastu(I'll censor that word)
<bishopONE>: also yeah fisting
<mwah> Gynx is it true you got admin over hero because hes from pakistan
This is a civil debate. I am interested in defending my points, not myself. The majority of your post attacks me, not my points. If you would like to formulate a post discussing the points being made in the discussion, I welcome it.
Seeing as you edited your post, making a few points, I shall reply.
"This does not add anything to the debate."
I say that repetitively and often, such as you make insinuations that have no point and are really only there to annoy me/my side of the argument. If you grow tired of reading it, well, I similarly grew tired of reading irrelevant ad hominem remarks.
Seeing as you edited your post, making a few points, I shall reply.
Originally Posted by fickarika
You are trying to persuade people in a manner i call deceit. I don't know what actually happens in your mind, but you somehow think, that you can look upon something, trying to seem wise. You act like you've had an enlightning ephiphany or someting like that, wich tangled your rational mind to mix your last science lessons with some beliefs some people are grasping out of the air, for over 2000 years.
I am not trying to persuade anyone. As of here, I am debating, not attempting to convert anyone. Where do you get the notions that I am acting like I am enlightened in any way? Because of my beliefs? If I sound haughty or evangelical and it is offending you, I apologize. I made no attempt at doing so at all.
You know where mankind could stand right now, without this interruption? There are some ridiculous facts in the bible like people being 200 years old for example . Its all written to catch and mold the opinion of people.
You know about mental conditioning? Neurolinguistic programming and that shit?
So you are saying the Bible is mental conditioning? Give me a few examples, I cannot defend the whole Bible on that very accurate accusation.
Just admit there is something you don't know or just shut the fuck up.
The Bible is of religious truth. Science is of scientific truth.
I mean it for the vast majority of religious people using religion the wrong way.
I know there is a vast contamination
of 80% in america, and it is hard to swim against the stream, but there are some people making a real good example and dont care. They go to work, fuck their wifes, fuck their fiances, fuck some strangers in the outback, die like pigs and are being buried somewhere. Maybe they participate out of kindness in this cult.
What is your point? Atheistic people are shunned because they don't care? That isn't the case in the least. This does not add anything to the debate.
But i would just tell nearly every religious person on this entire planet has been forced into it. I tell you something, and there is proof for that. Look at le country i come from.
We are christians on paper, cause there is a silly taxing verdict from before the world war 2. If you sit down for a on a cold sunday at 9 o'clock in one of a fucking range of our old fashioned churches , you will see some old retirees sitting there . People are just happier without it. I know some real fundamentalistic islamists here. They can't stand to follow their rules of nonsense, because its making totlly no sense in germany. Its a minority being religious here and people just dont want to interfere with it.
Religion has been fundamentally embarrassing, fundamentally a minority, and fundamentally deadly, yet it persists. Do you know why? Because it doesn't matter whether it is a minority, whether it is embarrassing, whether it is deadly. Those who believe will continue to believe, such as those who don't believe will continue to not believe. This does not add anything to the debate.
They just live here, work here , drink alcohol and then they are somehow regreting it due to their funny written law book wich they think is telling them only true and espacially important messagees
It is a matter of faith. It is not rational, it is not philosophical. You either believe or you don't.
You are just adopting to some moral standard my friend, thats all, and we have plenty of it on this planet, depending on where you were born
Like I've said before, I support moral universalism. It states that all men have some sort of common morals. The moral standard you adapt does indeed depends on religion, culture, laws, and numerous other circumstances. I suppose you are right. Though, this does not add anything to the debate..
The shit every religious person i argued with in my life, which wasn't many. It's hard to convince them even of real matters, like churches are no schools. I'm trying to circumvent a religious discussion, most of the time, because you never have solid ground to testify on.
Churches are schools for those who believe in that Churchs' religion. In that sense, it teaches the kids about their faith and their general education. Why are you trying to circumvent a religious discussion? This is one. I have been debating in here for a week already. If I had no solid ground, I wouldn't be here by now. This does not add anything to the debate.
Cause every religious person is meant, so it is written, to save mah soul. And if i am telling something against them, i'm just wrong.
No. It is written in the Bible that you are supposed to save your own soul. Religious people are simply trying to spread their faith and give more people the opportunity to save their own souls. Whether their communication is effective or is irrelevant to their religion. As for your preceding sentiment, it is so broad that I cannot comment against it. This does not add anything to the debate.
You hear me god i don't want to find a woman believing in you even it was an angel sent to get my soul into your hands, cause some guy named Ishi from the bible has written it down. Yeah
now we are in a bad situation cause we cannot write a new bible at all. People won't believe my version of it. Due to massive connectivity
What? This does not add anything to the debate.
Lets say an atheist would be able to "somehow" persuade you to let go of any belief at all, we both now deep down inside of us,There is no possible way to accomplish that. There is no possible way to remove something being totally a point of view at all kind of stuff. Its just like that if you would switch your conciousness with mine, every guy speaking any word about religion would be a really torture for your ears. And for me i would be just wanting to make friends with him and eat lunch, go to our dancing lessons and thinking of us being such good christians. From this point of view it is somehow a achievment for humanity, your peoples behaviour creates. Well yes it does, lets say there is one advantage in religion and thats the social aspect.
Im sure there are dozens of ways doing it with less collateral damage to every goddamn society on that planet.
The point of this debate is not persuasion. It is to debate. As for your point of persuasion, it does not matter whether you are atheistic or religious. One who is religious cannot convince one who is atheistic to abandon their non-belief, or vice versa. What does that have to do with anything? This does not add anything to the debate.
Maybe there will be some day, when a funny republican won't vote for a prick wih a christian campagne and that prick won't be forced to fit into a sheme.
Look at Mitt Romney how he had to change a big list of his actual very liberal positions, and even declare his father a religious man a year after his death, only to get votes from people like you.
Politics is completely separate from religion in most countries. By the way, Mitt Romney is an idiot.
I am not accusing you, i dont know how far your ideology effects your rational views , but mostly every choice in your life is easier when you can say hey, we are on the "good" side. Yeah our soldiers fight for da constitution, yeah they are soo proud to die yeah. Lets vote for a monkey maybe it will be able to start war with some real bad communists out there.
Im just referring on ron pauls 35 arguments why the us military had no right to go into iraq. Wich were blasted btw, means ignored totally
Why in the love of fuck are you using politics to attack religion? Especially American politics, which is secular. This does not add anything to the debate.
It is by far the best thing i can imagine when being a religious man: You can Ignore. Just Ignore, ignore, ignore...
Like? This does not add anything to the debate.
What are you doing wrong my child, well i am addicted to children. you kidding. no. well i wish i wouldn't be my child. Wait let me pray for it, god will forgive me.
Did you know the majority of child molesters and pedophiles are very religious men? And most of them are steading their faith, with it. I think you cant follow me, but people looking down at religion will maybe understand what i mean. You are bound to behave illogical when you try to answer questions where you wont find any answers at all. Or youre just the example that does not bother at all
Alright, here is a point I can talk about. A majority of pedophiles are religious men are so because religion deals significantly with children. They are not pedophiles because they are religious.
If i think about religion, the first thing that i can image is, how someone can get very perverted being told false morals most of their lives. I suggest watching a turkish movie about a sufi moslem being chosen by his imam to get the rent from their real estate. And him being sucked into the real world, with all of it's sinful joy. Yeah at the end he became crazy, i can totaly understand him , well if you waste 50 years of your life, in your square thinking, it is a big shock realizing you were so wrong. If there were no religion at all, this fella would have lived a pretty comfotable life btw. films called takva a mans fear of god
I cannot talk for Muslims because I don't know shit about Islam. Another thing, what is your idea of false morals? Are things such as "Treat your fellow man as you want yourself treated" or "Thou shall not kill" immoral?
Well now i can refer to generelizations, yeah that is a very fitting synonym for RELIGION.
What is moral universialism, moral point of view is depending on the attitude of a society at a scaled time.
We have a superior law system in germany, which is mostly changed due to moral development. Yeah development is a pretty good term for NO RELIGION. Fifty years ago men could force their wifes to coitus with laws.
That changed but society had this point of view back then. Well but society is always just a group , and you will find an opponent against everything what you want on this planet.
Moral universalism is the theory that all men have some sort of common moral sense. Ethical or ideological point of view depends on the attitude of a society at a scaled time, not morality. You say the change is due to moral development, which is true in some sense. That is a change in ethics though, not in basic morality. No, development is an action. So what if the development is secular? It doesn't matter. You don't need religion for ethical development. You simply need common sense. You might think what I said is anti-religious, but it is not. Secular rationality is very sound. That is to say, it is of common sense. Religion does not contradict common sense, it simply adds that there is a creator and an immaterial nature to things.
What you call an universal moral, could be wagely meaning simple defensive mechanisms of our brain, like feeling uneasy when hurting someones feelings or thinking of killing. You can see such things as universal manners, which were described by kant btw , wo btw abdominated every religion on this planet.
Whether it be a defensive system, a darwinistic instinct, a divine gift, or little tiny chips implanted by elves sent by captain kirk, it does not matter. The fact of the matter is, all humans have a common moral sense in some basic way. As for Kant dominating every religion, how about Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism? This does not add anything to the debate.
I mean come on theres a time every child stops believing santa clause is real, and even if he was, he has first to proove himself . I never got something unexpected, i must have been a real bad cheeky rascal! O.K i admit i am :P
If i look down at the development of my belief, i come partly from a very religious family , actually i call a priest my uncle. I can't remember a day in my life not being aware of this nonsense. I can only remember me thinking about the futility of a preacher my grandmother told me i should say every day.
This does not add anything to the debate.
I can comprehend and imagine why a preacher might be helpful for someones
emotional situation. Well i can not compreend people thinking it might be helping someone else, and on top of it , really helping . Like preventing japan from an earthquake or something.
This does not add anything to the debate.
What is it , a definition. for what , like for eternity?
What does it imply? How does your life get more comfortable with it?
Arguments against that are just futile, thats why i am quoting it,
And? Why is it futile? It is not circular logic, nor a fallacy that I know of. Why again is it futile? This does not add anything to the debate.
Or NOT you cant tell the difference cause you've never seen it. Maybe it will give you cancer cause its bored somehow . Well i hopefully will die of braincancer and there will be one big hole in my stomach, then some stupid can laugh about me telling me how god is punishing me. Very benevolent dear. I'll just tell its 1:4 chance to get cancer.
The Supreme Being is not a child. Stop saying it is one. This does not add anything to the debate.
Yes God is so idle all the time , hes away from keyboard until we make our free choice to die because of an earthquake god sent upon us. He knows all he is benevolent, but well he's just doing nothing from your statement.
How does god actually react on something at all? tell me wiseacre? i am very curious to know. Maybe he uses his ultimate moral thingy, it tells him faboulus things like don't let paris hilton die just kill them ricefarmers.
Your question in bold is overly vague, but is a good question. Explain it some more and I would be happy to give my two cents.
I am skipping the ontological argument, there are plenty atheists owning it in so many different ways. Just go on youtube. Or not , its no safe place for you.
Instead of talking about some arbitrary video on youtube, let's talk about your "owning" it. Don't send me to youtube and say "someone in there told you that you're wrong." That is a waste of my time. Own it yourself, and I'll give my two cents on that. As for your ad hominem comment, I'm going to say this: Why would I need to argue in youtube comments if I can debate civilly and intelligibly here? I am not offended by anti-religious comments on youtube because I do not take them seriously. For Christs' sake, I had a guy tell me that Christianity was a plant religion contrived by the Romans to make Jews more pro-Roman, all the while persecuting Romans and Jews alike who have converted to Christianity. If you want to engage in a debate, I take that seriously, and so should the other party. This is obviously not that case in youtube comments. This does not add anything to the debate.
[hide][/hide]
No relgions does not help us understand at all. Everytime science just blows up a relgious world "VIEW", those trye to fool themselves with such an argument. Belief can only occur where disinformation is . It doesnt explain anything at all, its just masking some really big knowledge holes with ignorance.
Religions help us understand religious truths if you have faith in said truths. If you don't, it is irrelevant. If you do, it is truth and understanding. Science cannot disprove religion, as religion is not scientific.This does not add anything to the debate.
Imagine you had done a crime and your attorney would say youll get 3 years but you would get 15 instead. You would have somehow believed just something, as you can believe in something you never will get an answer for.
What? This does not add anything to the debate.
HAHA vegetarian, i like you . Don't you realize you are just building a large "fence", to justify your points of view? I thought it is gods decision wheter animals were created for?
Again just another "universal moral perspective" of yours.
What the fuck? No. I am not a vegetarian, as a matter of fact, I've had two cheeseburgers today. I said that God did not create animals to be eaten, not that God created animals for them not to be eaten. I meant that animals were not created solely to be eaten. This does not add anything to the debate.
you are making some really deep accusations here, never knew you were some kind of all knowing scientist.
I am not making scientific points, but philosophical points, or theological points. This does not add anything to the debate.
Well we are just asserting for fun here, but just to be told again, people like you could use their time to solve ecological or economical problems for example instead
are inheriting a bad habit for humanity, which is obtained from generation to generation, and nothing more. This arguing on and on awaits mankind for at least 500 more years or so i "believe" There is nothing more behind it, it is only sad people lost so much because of it over the centuries.
Those are scientific problems to be solved by scientists and categories thereof. I am not here to debate science, but philosophy and theology. This does not add anything to the debate.
"This does not add anything to the debate."
I say that repetitively and often, such as you make insinuations that have no point and are really only there to annoy me/my side of the argument. If you grow tired of reading it, well, I similarly grew tired of reading irrelevant ad hominem remarks.
Last edited by Ray; Feb 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
Right then. I was just busy and was moving fast to get those other posts out.
Originally Posted by William
Ok,then I guess it depends on the perspective you're seeing it from.If,you're following a certain moral system,then of-course any human would come short to it,specially one which is detailed such as the christian moral system.
So,if you are christianity,you have a following set of morals.I can argue about them because they are hypothetically set by "god",or whatever.But,I just wanna ask?Do you think sex before a marriage is an immoral thing to do?If,you believe in a universal moral law,than we're talking about something entirely different now.
Personally I think sex before marriage is fine if all parties are consenting and are aware of the implications of sex. It's simply my opinion, and I disagree with the Church on that fact.
I don't really believe in the existence of souls;I believe that we are animals just like all of other organisms,but smarter(lucky us! :P)
Sure. Monism vs Dualism and all that.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worl...?articleid=909
This quite illustrates my point of view.
Alright. The Bible has only changed from its original meaning about 2%, according to academic review.
Mei fati dominus, mei animi dux
Need to PM a SMod?
Unofficial Skimmer of Discussion!
Fabula Magnus wants more able RPers!
Cataclysm is still alive?
Thorn
Wiggi must love me forever now.
@RayA75
If god does not want to intervene because he gave as a free will, as you say, believing in him provides nothing but an explanation for an event that caused existance itself to be. We don't even know yet if such an event was necessary, so there really is no point in arguing about that in the first place.
Morals change constantly, things that were taboo 50 years ago are just fine today. Saying that universal morals exist without providing proper evidence is nothing I would call scientific, I'd call it superfluous.
There are many examples for ideologies, evolution of ethics etc that support the idea that morals are very dependant on the time we live in.
There is a reason why ethics are such a highly debated subject many philosophers engage in. They help us adjust laws and whatnot to the current trends of morals and human nature in general.
You said before that you accept evolution as a fact, why would you exclude this rather small detail? It is not like you couldn't use god as explanation for the existance of morals in the first place.
You also claim that universal morals are not caused naturally. Well, before you proceed to find a supernatural cause for something I'd suggest proving its existance in the first place.
I keep my statement short because I'd prefer to discuss one thing at a time rather than many points at once.
If god does not want to intervene because he gave as a free will, as you say, believing in him provides nothing but an explanation for an event that caused existance itself to be. We don't even know yet if such an event was necessary, so there really is no point in arguing about that in the first place.
Morals change constantly, things that were taboo 50 years ago are just fine today. Saying that universal morals exist without providing proper evidence is nothing I would call scientific, I'd call it superfluous.
There are many examples for ideologies, evolution of ethics etc that support the idea that morals are very dependant on the time we live in.
There is a reason why ethics are such a highly debated subject many philosophers engage in. They help us adjust laws and whatnot to the current trends of morals and human nature in general.
You said before that you accept evolution as a fact, why would you exclude this rather small detail? It is not like you couldn't use god as explanation for the existance of morals in the first place.
You also claim that universal morals are not caused naturally. Well, before you proceed to find a supernatural cause for something I'd suggest proving its existance in the first place.
I keep my statement short because I'd prefer to discuss one thing at a time rather than many points at once.
How are you?
