It is currently Thu May 23, 2013 6:43 am
coder0xff wrote:I recommend that atheists/agnostics/whatever do the same if they hope to save others.
Sathor wrote:One person told me once the Bible is one-to-one the word of god.
Sathor wrote:I can't tolerate the blindness to facts and science that often comes with it.
whiffen wrote:Religion can teach science yeah, but why not just teach science? Why do you need the religion part added? Something that is not scientific.
Noodles wrote:It is my observation (and one shared by Richard Dawkins, not that I try to add weight by mention of the name, but simply state that I am not alone in this) that they cannot coexist. And not as you amazingly say, because religion can tolerate science! Science cannot tolerate religion! Science does not need and would be far better off without religion at all! Religious apologists such as yourself make me laugh with this becuase it sounds like you are trying to make a concession! "Oh alright then, we'll let in a bit of science too, just to make you happy!" No! Fuck that! We don't need you, we don't want you, and when you finally realise you're all barking mad and completely delusional WE will make the concessions and let you in.
Noodles wrote:This 'monolithic entity' as you put it is actually an extremely apt term. Monolithic, as in old and big and strong, and Entity as in something that isn't tangible.
Also monolith's don't have anything to support them!
Edit: And if you apply a small amount of pressure in the right place they fall flat!
Noodles wrote:Why not? It's supported by a massive amount of evidence. I'd say it's a fair bet that anything you bring to the table wouldn't tip the scales in your favour.
G. K. Chesterton wrote:When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself.
Noodles wrote:How can it not disgust you? It is an insult to our ability to think! The idea that people will settle for this claptrap as an explanation instead of going out and finding out themselves is appalling! And downright lazy! A person with faith is simply one who never left the cave! (See Plato).
Dionysos wrote:If you are religious, you are already practicing that kind of thinking, and you are more prone to apply it to other matters.
Dionysos wrote:Dogma is something encouraged by religion and religious faith.
whiffen wrote:I'm sorry if I seem raged, but I really dislike religion. And I don't see why people can take out parts of the bible and ignore them. If some parts are bad by today's standards why can you still keep the rest? You cant just pick and choose what parts you want to believe :/
whiffen wrote:And even then, this god puts us here and gives us no evidence of himself and by being a rational person and saying,"Well there must be no god since we have no evidence to base it off of." And for being rational god sends you to hell for all eternity. I'm sorry but this god sounds like a real dick.
coder0xff wrote:Being charitable and being religious aren't mutually exclusive. Religious groups who are charitable are an example of religious people doing good things, but that doesn't mean it's all they do.
coder0xff wrote:Bush would even have you think that god endorses his choices, regardless of whether they were wrong or right.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Believing in a higher power doesn't make one's life less worth living, hence the saving.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Well, considering that it was men who wrote book as well as men who, at the Council of Nicea, decided what books should be included. So, even if a Christian has not read the Bible does not mean they know nothing of God(Of course, they should read it). And for that matter, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, some are simply tangible stories reflecting less dramatic but altogether true conditions of the human mind.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Religion isn't trying to teach science, and neither does it fly in the face of science. You speak much of how science contradicts the word of religion, but I have yet to see how. And yes, evolution is real and reconcilable with faith, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Does the fact that the world was not literally created in seven days mean that spiritual forces are not at work?
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:If there is indeed a God, and he created the universe, is it too hard to believe that he would make concrete rules that would govern all things, or they may simply arise themselves? To put it more simply, if God created all of this, that would include the natural laws of science.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Many atheists complain that theists try to convert and force them to believe the word of God, then why cannot we believe what we want, free from your attempts to "convert"? Why does everyone need to agree with you. Can't you simple be smug in "knowing" that you are right and we are "stupid"?
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:And I quoteG. K. Chesterton wrote:When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself.
Unless you care to statistically analyze the world's problems and carp for a way to blame them on faith, then I will forget you ever said this. You speak of reason and scientific fact but I see no justifiable way anyone could prove that religion has in fact done much more harm than good.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:That's not what religion is about. It's not about taking someone else's answer and keeping it as your own. It's about knowing the lessons of your particular religion and then living your life, applying them, testing them, and correcting them when needed. Is religion not about the search for truth and enlightenment?
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Hmm, you speak of not settling for other people's answers rather than figuring out yourself. But you're more than willing to accept Plato's allegory of the cave rather than figuring out your own. And if you really care to make that comparison, you are stating that all of our relevant reality is that God does not exist, because a theist sees exactly what you see if you both stand on the same street. Is the absence of God all that becomes apparent when one is free of the cave? Sorry, but your comparison is faulty.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Bullshit. I have talked to psychologists and this simply is not the case. And you must take into account, not all proof is physical. Besides, religious people are just as skeptical on matters other than religion. Plus, we are condensing matters of God into matters of everything. People think differently about whether a computer is built correctly, whether pesticides were used in growing a crop, or if a politician means their word, than on mystical matters. Mysticism is a completely different bag than the physical and mundane.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:This is true and false. Misled preachers and "denizens of faith" have misused the name of God in many matters throughout history. But this does not reflect the true intentions of belief. True religion is about seeking enlightenment, and enlightenment isn't following a strict set of rules to get into heaven. I hate dogma. And there's not much more I hate than fundamentalist theists, but not all theists are dogmatic, the true theists reject dogma.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Sure you can, it was written by men. As your pamphlet says, it is hearsay, is it so hard to believe that some parts may contradict the actual message of God? The difficult task is figuring out which parts are just.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:I don't think that God is as vengeful as the Old Testament paints him to be. And I don't think only pious Christians will get to heaven.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Luckily for him was right. /start new(hopeless) argument
But seriously, it is a sad but true fact that people manipulate religion for their own agenda. Yes, religion is misused time and time again, but this is not an argument. Government can be a beneficent entity, it can protect and better its people, but it can also disenfranchise and destroy in the wrong hands. A book can promote good morals and get people thinking, but it can also incite and inflame when willed. A chisel can be used to sculpt beautiful pieces of art when used properly, but one can also turn that piece of metal into a weapon, to kill instead of create. Does this mean that we should destroy the chisel? Goodness, no, but we must always keep a keen eye for the crazed sculptor. We must always remember that religion has done great things as a whole, and we cannot incessantly group the good sculptors and bad sculptors alike into one single-willed entity.
Mr-Jigsaw wrote:Just so you know, this is hard to do alone. And for the record, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to get a fair view of religion out there, the good and the bad.
Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased by tales, so is the other.
Spike wrote:After death, chemicals and electric pulses stop working, so basically, you stop thinking and then it comes the Nothing.
xalener wrote:Well. Nothing can be destroyed, just rearanged. So I imagine small parts of you will be reborn into other people, but that being will be made of other people/ things.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users