PDA

View Full Version : Religion is Gay



Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 04:29 PM
Note: This post was posted practically verbatim from sites I've posted it in. It's futile to plagiarize. :l

In other sites, the discussion has developed quite well, and it's currently under progress. There exist several things that I did not know or take into account when I wrote this. I state that this was posted here for only experimental and entertainment purposes.


The general populace unfortunately possesses an inept knowledge regarding the universe that has lead to the misconception of infinity and dimensions in the universe. It is certain to say that the universe is infinite in all of its dimensions. I assume you understand that the dimensions are not a parallel sub-universe as it has been erroneously comprehended by people. The dimensions are basically the categorical mathematical discrimination of intrinsic elements of the comprehension of the universe set apart for purposes of individual study and science.

For example: The first dimension is a dot or a line; the second dimension treats planes; the third dimension comprehends volumes; the fourth dimension is time; etc.

In conjunction, the dimension comprehend each aspect of the universe as we know it and has been provided with a global measure that has been developed and perfected over time. I'm unsure of the number of dimensions, since according to quantum theorists they range from 9 to 11. Unfortunately, I don't have that knowledge.

Some negligent people assert that infinity can't be proven, but by logical thought we don't have to be omnipresent in order to fathom general aspects.

Picture it like this, if the universe was spatially limited, what would be beyond those limits? The answer is simple: more space. Space can't be limited, since the vacuum is an empty space.

The same logic is applied to time; if the universe was created at a certain point, what would be previous to that time? An infinite quantity of retroceding time, and omnipresent space.

Inept skeptics may assert that the universe can exist without being infinitely proportioned, but by proportioning it into a finite measure, dimensional spectra would distort the universe into a paradox.

Significant people will abide by that, but the prominent controversy relies on the argument regarding the origins of matter. The religious resolution is that an omnipresent being created matter, holding with the expectations of no more questioning that matter. Rational thought makes us believe otherwise. Considering that time is infinite, then if a god created matter at some point, infinitely previous to the event in question, the universe was nothing but a mere inert void abstract to any laws of physics.

The truth is that mankind has another general misconception regarding the universe. They abide by the logic that states "there is a beginning and an end to everything", meaning that they will believe that if something exists, it was created at some point and it will end at another. That is certainly not true. The truth is that the laws of the universe force this one to undergo certain intrinsic that could be denominated as cycles. So it is certain to assure that matter has always existed, and that's what makes the contrast in the dimensions and forms physics.

Matter is undergoing several cycles to perpetuate its utile existence. The theory of the big bang is itself a manifestation of this in a massive scale. So it is safe to assume that big bangs have been fundamental to matter.

Matter is affected by several physics (the laws of attraction of matter), and according to them, matter contracts into a determined, considerably aleatory point in space. This is caused by several factors, such as gravity and black holes. As a refute, people say that it would take an unimaginable time in order for that to happen, this is what I apply into what I call "The Time Perception of a Biotic Conscience". The biotic civilization that gave birth to us has only lived during a very finite time. Of course, it seems difficult for a common human to imagine thousands of years in retrocession to actuality, thus it becomes unimaginable for them to comprehend a procedure that might take trillions of years to be managed. However, without conscience applied into the universe, those time lapses occur immediately (to word it in that matter).

Taking that into account, the formation of life takes place through an aleatory basis. This is where the mainstream theory of evolution is applied.


Human thought patterns are a hinder to significant improvements of science and further recognition. In psychology, people will become negligent according to reasoning that does not appeal to their personal perspectives in order to cater their comfort, regardless whether this one proves to be certain or not, implying the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.

Religion could have initially been a good idea. Taking into account that people will not abide through reason, they might be able to be forced into it by fear by manipulated the psychological aspects stated above. However, human nature will always ensue fallacy. Since ignorance and psychological complexes suggest in the majority (we could say 99.9%) of the population, the cumulative consequences result progressively detrimental in a virtually exponential scale, turning all of society and its habitat into a deplorable environment.


People who cannot fathom something try to make their own assertions based on preconceived notions and ideas, so to make a belied form of conclusion for a symptom or any other thing they cannot fully understand or comprehend.

Human will eschew all forms of logic that contradict religion, since they feel more comfortable with that, regardless whether it has conspicuous flaws in the content of its consistence. They want to believe that there exists life after death in order to satisfy their conscience. The truth is that life is only the biotic manifestation of matter and energy, when there is death, our conscience is lost, and our energy and matter are integrated into the food chain.

There's a plethora of these contradictions. But I'll quote one from a friend of mine targeting western religion:


For a being to be all knowing, it must know the future as well as the present and past. But if free will exists, the future is uncertain, it changes for every choice anyone makes. The true future could be a thousand different paths from any given point in time. Unless the being knows which of these paths time will follow, it cannot be all-knowing. But for a being to know what path time will follow, the future must be certain, and there can be no free will."
~JB

Christians believe in free will. Since, God is within the laws of existence, is thus not perfect, discrediting the Christian belief.

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 04:38 PM
And bump. Make sure you read the thread carefully.

yelloweyeyes
12-06-2007, 04:39 PM
I don't consider time the fourth dimension. The first three dimensions deal with space, whereas time does not. You can't compare time to a 3 dimensional object like you can compare a 2 dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.

Time and space are completely different.

And yes, religion is completely bullshit and illogical. All major religions are based entirely on myths that were written before people understood the concept of the universe, and somehow those myths are still accepted as truth today.

Saying Jesus Christ existed is exactly the same as saying that Zeus and the other gods in Greek Mythology existed.

Sham
12-06-2007, 04:39 PM
i pretty much just skimmed through it because i could basically tell that most of it was some sciene bull or whatever. but anyway the thing is that religion is different for anyone. It can be just what you believe in, or what you do, its not necessarily follwing a major religion or beliaveing in some kind of god. also, about that last sentence, christians and many other religions place god as a high being and thus to no place him as condritictions of partial law. the thing is, nobody really knows what happened, so the science could be just as much bullshit as the religion you claim is. you also probably won't convince people to change otherwise, so the thing is you should just acknolowedlge that people believe differently than you. you arew just as annoying to religious people as they are annoying to you. even if you don't necessarily agree with their beliefs, its best not to annoy them about it or argue them with it. its best just to let it go, because its really not something worth doing or taking the time to discuss. i mean, i don't like judaism and ive been exposed to it for a long time, but i wont argue with jews or tell them thier religion is wrong. some of it is pretty sick, judaism, just like there is sick stuff with all religions, but when you really think about it there is sick stuff in all of us too. so i think we should just all lay low and respect people for who they are, at least before you even meet them. even if you think you sound respectable and smart in that thing you wrote, you really just sound like an asshole and people who believe in a certain religiong wouldnt want to talk to you. see what happens?

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 04:49 PM
I understand what you mean, and I wish I could just let it go, but there are so many issues with Christians. I become so irked when people base a decision, try to make a point, and specially protest against something based on their religion.

Science is the most accurate theory, and it is based off of study, unlike religion. Of course, science is most certainly wrong in a way, but it continuously adapts and develops to expand our knowledge. Science is what has brought us everything we have to start with, not religion.

Science gives results; when we're sick, we go to a doctor, not an exorcist. Saying that science will never prove anything is like saying that science never proved that spirits are the cause of diseases, etc.

I believe in efficiency and progress, but religion is too hindering sometimes.

jacknife737
12-06-2007, 04:50 PM
It’s always puzzled me why some people insist on trying to prove Christianity/ Islam /Judaism /religion in general wrong. It’s almost, if not just as bad as religious fundamentalists trying to prove that their religion is the “true one”. Who are you to question someone else’s beliefs?

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 04:51 PM
I don't consider time the fourth dimension. The first three dimensions deal with space, whereas time does not. You can't compare time to a 3 dimensional object like you can compare a 2 dimensional object with a 3 dimensional object.

Time and space are completely different.
Together they form the time-space continuum though. Without time the universe wouldn't make any sense.

Dimension stands more for an intrinsic element of the universe than a spacial categorization. That's why there are so many dimensions.

Sorry for the double post.

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 04:52 PM
It’s always puzzled me why some people insist on trying to prove Christianity/ Islam /Judaism /religion in general wrong. It’s almost, if not just as bad as religious fundamentalists trying to prove that their religion is the “true one”. Who are you to question someone else’s beliefs?

Who are you to question my ability to question beliefs?

Damn christians.

Sham
12-06-2007, 05:05 PM
YOURE questioning other people on how they could possible belife something. you are saying that they are contradictive, but just look at yourself.

jacknife737
12-06-2007, 05:18 PM
Semi-related

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-956X%28196005%2937%3A6%3C353%3ABFITSM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V

Blind Faith in the Scientific Method
It is becoming increasingly evident that science and the scientific
method are achieving a reputation of superiority which they may, or
may not, deserve. The scientific method has been set far above other
methods of evaluation and is accepted unquestioningly by a large number
of people. This method is not necessarily novel nor is it peculiar
to the realm of science. It is the simple, logical method of finding the
answer to a particular problem by means of collection of data, observation,
experimentation and conclusion.

The scientific method in and of itself is not under attack here. What
is actually at fault is not this method, but rather the popular attitude of
accepting it uncritically and the common tendency to think of it as
infallible. The idea that science and the scientific method are beyond
criticism is a delusion clung to by most laymen. Through the media
of advertising, unfair advantage is often taken of the public's blind
acceptance of anything associated with science. The people of today
have been so indoctrinated with the idea of the infallibility of science
they can not conceive that it could ever be wrong.
Two ever-present conditions lead to a margin of error in the scientific
method. Certain allowable errors always exist in any scientific measuring
instrument since there is no smallest unit. Also the experimental
techniques and the choice of data vary to some extent with the individual.
Thus this method is susceptible to error and can lead only
to probable truths.

Through years of application of the scientific method, scientists
and laymen alike have grown to expect and even demand that nature be
lawful. Yet, is this orderliness a natural phenomenon or has man
imposed his expectations on nature? The principle of uncertainty
is one of the cornerstones of modern science. Werner Heisenberg
observed that the fundamental characteristic of natural events is not
lawfulness, but randomness. What we have previously accepted as
being natural laws may be only statistical probabilities.
Why then should a conclusion which has been arrived at by the
scientific method be allowed to go unchallenged? In permitting this
man is engaging in a worship of the means to an end and is consequently
losing sight of the end itself. Science may be defined as that

which has been proved by the scientific method. In expressing this
"blind faith in science" the public is failing to use the clear, logical
thinking which is one of the primary aims of the scientific method.
-PEGGY JAMES
Columbia College
Columbia, South Carolina

T-6005
12-06-2007, 05:20 PM
The problem with people like you is that you try so hard to voice things confusingly in order to sound like your thoughts are intricately organized.

As for your little ramble up there, you make a lot of points that should be sourced. "In psychology," "people will," - I mean, come on, what the hell is that?

"Humans will eschew all forms of logic that contradict religion" is particularly aggravating. If that's so, then how can we have arrived where we are? How would John Stuart Mill have arrived where he did, proposing a system in which people strive to be progressive by questioning things?

Basically, I don't feel your argument is well-founded or cohesive enough to really bother with, so that's all I'm going to limit myself to.

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 05:37 PM
YOURE questioning other people on how they could possible belife something. you are saying that they are contradictive, but just look at yourself.
How am I contradicting myself? Is it contradicting to say that knowledge has priority over faith?

If you're talking about what I said to Jacknife, I was implying something.

I'm not really being hostile in this thread.

Semi-related

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-956X%28196005%2937%3A6%3C353%3ABFITSM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V
Yeah, I agree with that. The scientific method is in no ways impervious. I told that to Sham.


The problem with people like you is that you try so hard to voice things confusingly in order to sound like your thoughts are intricately organized.
Seriously, that isn't my intention.


As for your little ramble up there, you make a lot of points that should be sourced. "In psychology," "people will," - I mean, come on, what the hell is that?
Is it necessary? I think we know well about delusion, etc. When I say "people will" I talk about the laymen.


"Humans will eschew all forms of logic that contradict religion" is particularly aggravating. If that's so, then how can we have arrived where we are? How would John Stuart Mill have arrived where he did, proposing a system in which people strive to be progressive by questioning things?Yeah, I talk about the average. Don't take these kind of things so literally.


Basically, I don't feel your argument is well-founded or cohesive enough to really bother with, so that's all I'm going to limit myself to.Oh, come on. Try at least.

BustedKnuckles
12-06-2007, 06:49 PM
Just a little tidbit of information for people that say the entire Bible is a fallicy and is just a hodge podge of stories:

The Bible talks about a group of people called the Hittites. These were a warrior society that attemted to invade the Hebrew nation from the north. Scientists used this group to try and disprove the Bible. However, here recently, a group of people have been discovered (unearthed) to the north of what was then the Hebrew nation. The name of these people? The Hittites.

And to say that the Bible is garbage is a garbage statement. There are many values that you can take from the Bible and live by, but decide to not call yourself a Christian.

Also, people are entitled to their beliefs, their hope. If they hope in a God that is divine and they believe that he will supply for them, let them. Hope is sometimes the only thing people have.

"Of all the forces that make for a better world none is so indespensible none so powerful as hope. Without hope men are only half alive."-Charles Sawyer

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 07:32 PM
Just a little tidbit of information for people that say the entire Bible is a fallicy and is just a hodge podge of stories:

The Bible talks about a group of people called the Hittites. These were a warrior society that attemted to invade the Hebrew nation from the north. Scientists used this group to try and disprove the Bible. However, here recently, a group of people have been discovered (unearthed) to the north of what was then the Hebrew nation. The name of these people? The Hittites.

And to say that the Bible is garbage is a garbage statement. There are many values that you can take from the Bible and live by, but decide to not call yourself a Christian.

Also, people are entitled to their beliefs, their hope. If they hope in a God that is divine and they believe that he will supply for them, let them. Hope is sometimes the only thing people have.

"Of all the forces that make for a better world none is so indespensible none so powerful as hope. Without hope men are only half alive."-Charles Sawyer

Yeah, the Hittites were the ones that discovered steel weapons if, I recall correctly. What's your point though? I believe Jesus existed, but not that he was really the son of god.

The ancient testament also talks about when the Persians liberated the hebrews, and that's recorded in history. Since the Jews really like Cyrus for liberating them, they adopted some of the concepts of the Persians' religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster was the person who originally came with the concept of good and evil, heaven and hell. That's why Christians nowadays believe in hell.

Why do we need hope? We can find better morals in a book of philosophy. Religion is a rule on fear, just an escapism to death. It's almost weak.

BustedKnuckles
12-06-2007, 07:38 PM
Why do we need hope? We can find better morals in a book of philosophy. Religion is a rule on fear, just an escapism to death. It's almost weak.

I never thought I'd agree with you on this, but I agree with you on the fear part. I'm not saying just use the Bible as a place to go for your morals. I'm saying that there are some things in the Bible that you can use on a daily basis to make yourself a better person. Example: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Without hope, people would have nothing to look forward to. I'm hoping that I do well teaching while I'm being evaluated next week. I'm hoping my dad gets me a new digital camera for Christmas. I'm hoping that I pass a class with higher than a C+ so I don't have to retake it.

I don't rely on hope, however there are those that do and those that need hope. Hope is sometimes the only thing that brings people out of a period of darkness. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, because it sounds like you've never experienced anything like this.

Llamas
12-06-2007, 07:42 PM
Just a little tidbit of information for people that say the entire Bible is a fallicy and is just a hodge podge of stories:

The Bible talks about a group of people called the Hittites. These were a warrior society that attemted to invade the Hebrew nation from the north. Scientists used this group to try and disprove the Bible. However, here recently, a group of people have been discovered (unearthed) to the north of what was then the Hebrew nation. The name of these people? The Hittites.

And to say that the Bible is garbage is a garbage statement. There are many values that you can take from the Bible and live by, but decide to not call yourself a Christian.

Also, people are entitled to their beliefs, their hope. If they hope in a God that is divine and they believe that he will supply for them, let them. Hope is sometimes the only thing people have.

"Of all the forces that make for a better world none is so indespensible none so powerful as hope. Without hope men are only half alive."-Charles Sawyer

Wait, so due to the fact that one group of people from the Bible exists, that automatically makes the Bible a completely factual thing? Did you know that the books of the Bible were voted on? A bunch of people got together and voted on which ones made the anthology. And a bunch of people decided what order to put them in. It just bothers me that people today put all this faith in the decisions of people who lived thousands of years ago. It's one thing to have faith in a God, and I can understand why people might do that... but having faith in the decisions of random people we don't know jack about is ridiculous.

BustedKnuckles
12-06-2007, 07:56 PM
Wait, so due to the fact that one group of people from the Bible exists, that automatically makes the Bible a completely factual thing? Did you know that the books of the Bible were voted on? A bunch of people got together and voted on which ones made the anthology. And a bunch of people decided what order to put them in. It just bothers me that people today put all this faith in the decisions of people who lived thousands of years ago. It's one thing to have faith in a God, and I can understand why people might do that... but having faith in the decisions of random people we don't know jack about is ridiculous.

Please reread what I said. No where in there did I say the entire Bible was factual.

And yes, this is all old news to me. I'm a history education major and have taken a class in Western Civilization, Philosophy of Christianity, and have seen the movie the Da Vinci code. The councils of Nicea and Nicomedia are why I don't hold the Bible in high regard. The individuals who voted on the books of the Bible were power hungry individuals, put into power over others. What is the best way to hold power over the huddled masses? Fear and guilt.

Please don't lecture me or assume before simply asking. If you ask instead of assume or lecture me, I'd be more than willing to tell you about myself and my beliefs.

Llamas
12-06-2007, 08:07 PM
I didn't lecture you. I did ask.

Sunny
12-06-2007, 08:51 PM
Honestly, your posts would be a lot less arduous to read if you put more effort in conveying your point clearly instead of engaging in verbal masturbation that results in gems such as this:


"Since ignorance and psychological complexes suggest in the majority (we could say 99.9%) of the population, the cumulative consequences result progressively detrimental in a virtually exponential scale, turning all of society and its habitat into a deplorable environment."

Basically, all you're doing is saying "Ignorance makes the world a shitty place to live in" in the most convoluted way imaginable. bravo!

Your delusions of eloquence are really quite tiresome.

Scythe Death
12-06-2007, 08:56 PM
Honestly, your posts would be a lot less arduous to read if you put more effort in conveying your point clearly instead of engaging in verbal masturbation that results in gems such as this:



Basically, all you're doing is saying "Ignorance makes the world a shitty place to live in" in the most convoluted way imaginable. bravo!

Your delusions of eloquence are really quite tiresome.

Holy fuck! D:







Your sentence lacked the emphasis mine had though.

BustedKnuckles
12-06-2007, 09:44 PM
Your delusions of eloquence are really quite tiresome.

I think I love you.

Llamas
12-06-2007, 09:47 PM
Scythe's word choices remind me of the whole April Fool's thing. Sunny's last sentence was what reminded me. Good times.

BustedKnuckles
12-06-2007, 11:43 PM
Scythe's word choices remind me of the whole April Fool's thing. Sunny's last sentence was what reminded me. Good times.

Oh god...that was damn funny! One of the best pulled pranks I've seen!

batfish
12-07-2007, 11:05 AM
Nice use of the thesaurus :-/ Pity it doesn't read very clearly; phrases like "inept knowledge" just sound badly worded.


Why do we need hope? We can find better morals in a book of philosophy. Religion is a rule on fear, just an escapism to death. It's almost weak.
Lots of people need a crutch to get them through life; some use alcohol rather than the Bible. It doesn't prove anything about either.

Atheists have the best arguments, which makes faith such a precarious thing.

I don't think of religion as an intellectual game. Even if we know what is true - and we don't - you can't reduce life to a set of provable realities.

BREAK
12-07-2007, 11:13 AM
hai guys check out my cool vocabulary, nevermind that i can't use it to produce anything remotely readable

plz think i'm smart k?

wheelchairman
12-07-2007, 11:21 AM
hai guys check out my cool vocabulary, nevermind that i can't use it to produce anything remotely readable

plz think i'm smart k?

Translated:
Salutations gentlemen, monitor sensational phraseology. I cannot employ it to construct anything remotely decipherable.

Scythe Death
12-07-2007, 01:44 PM
o shit guys has anyone have Nething to sei besides mocking me fo ma superfluous verbiage?

Even though this thread has some decent lulz, nothing has been said about the topic.

Bazza
12-07-2007, 02:00 PM
Even though this thread has some decent lulz, nothing has been said about the topic.

That's because you haven't put across your arguement in a clear and easy way. That's the crux of forming a discusion, keeping it simple and to the point. If you start going off on a tangent with mumbo jumbo jargon then people will just think you're an idiot. If you believe using complex language (that really doesn't make easy reading) makes you seem intelligent then you are wrong. Some of the most intelligent people are capable of conveying their points whilst using simple sentence structures.

Sunny
12-07-2007, 02:16 PM
there's a difference between "superfluous verbiage" and "verbal diarrhea of epic proportions".

and since you want comments on the topic: perhaps it would've been smarter to either attempt to criticize the concept of *organized* religion, focus on one religion in particular, or discuss the human desire for religion in a manner that shows the slightest understanding of the human condition.
it doesn't seem like you are trying to start a discussion; you appear to be primarily interested in preaching ex-caethedra. tsk.

also, massive lols at "inept sceptics". if i ever wanted to start a really shitty hardcore band, i'd most certainly name it that.

Scythe Death
12-07-2007, 07:42 PM
there's a difference between "superfluous verbiage" and "verbal diarrhea of epic proportions".

and since you want comments on the topic: perhaps it would've been smarter to either attempt to criticize the concept of *organized* religion, focus on one religion in particular, or discuss the human desire for religion in a manner that shows the slightest understanding of the human condition.
it doesn't seem like you are trying to start a discussion; you appear to be primarily interested in preaching ex-caethedra. tsk.

also, massive lols at "inept sceptics". if i ever wanted to start a really shitty hardcore band, i'd most certainly name it that.

:[

I don't get it, you don't like hardcore?



For a while I've been saying that I would only speak to those who can fathom my speak, buit I don't think that's good anymore. I'll be less wordy here or whatever.

And no, I'm not gonna bother changing my post.

So here's another example of why I hate christians:

http://atlf.divineboards.net/index.php?topic=3453.msg70181;boardseen#new

PaintPhone
12-07-2007, 07:45 PM
Not every Christian wants to ban porn.

Scythe Death
12-07-2007, 07:49 PM
Not every Christian wants to ban porn.

They don't even want to ban all porn, only cartoons.

T-6005
12-07-2007, 09:48 PM
you appear to be primarily interested in preaching ex-caethedra.
Honestly, this is what I wanted to say that I meant to say thethingnessly.

RickyCrack
12-07-2007, 11:27 PM
How do I form thesis?

Vera
12-08-2007, 08:03 AM
Ex caethedra ...?

I googled and all I got was Polish sites and this thread so I'm assuming it's a Polish expression. :P

Scythe Death
12-08-2007, 08:25 AM
Ex caethedra ...?

I googled and all I got was Polish sites and this thread so I'm assuming it's a Polish expression. :P


adv. & adj.
With the authority derived from one's office or position

More likely, I explained logically why don't we need a god.

Sunny
12-08-2007, 08:30 AM
aw, i misspelled it. prnkonme. cathedra it is. and no, it's not just a Polish thing ;p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


S_D, it's not that we can't "fathom your speak", because believe it or not, SAT prep words are not *that* intimidating or foreign to most of us. as a general rule, however, it would probably do you a lot of good to focus on communicating clearly. nothing wrong with flaunting your vocabulary if you're doing it right, but it becomes plain ridiculous once it starts to distract from your argument. on the other hand, though, i suppose your actual argument isn't a particularly complex or sophisticated one, so you need to "dress it up" as much as you can.

i love how you tried to present your contempt for religious people in a pseudo-academic manner, and once that failed, your argument deteriorated into "I ALSO H8 CHRISTIANS CUZ SUM OF THEM WANT TO BAN HENTAI". luls all around.

wheelchairman
12-08-2007, 08:35 AM
Academically speaking his lack of comprehension on Hermeneutical horizons has lead to this controversy, one can only hope that he'll apply these lessons ontologically. The deconstruction mentioned by Mags in her last post is most amusing.

I need a more powerful thesaurus. A thesaurus on steroids. In actuality a meta-thesaurus to go with all these metatheoretical terms that I threw around.

Scythe Death
12-08-2007, 08:38 AM
aw, i misspelled it. prnkonme. cathedra it is. and no, it's not just a Polish thing ;p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility


S_D, it's not that we can't "fathom your speak", because believe it or not, SAT prep words are not *that* intimidating or foreign to most of us. as a general rule, however, it would probably do you a lot of good to focus on communicating clearly. nothing wrong with flaunting your vocabulary if you're doing it right, but it becomes plain ridiculous once it starts to distract from your argument. on the other hand, though, i suppose your actual argument isn't a particularly complex or sophisticated one, so you need to "dress it up" as much as you can.

i love how you tried to present your contempt for religious people in a pseudo-academic manner, and once that failed, your argument deteriorated into "I ALSO H8 CHRISTIANS CUZ SUM OF THEM WANT TO BAN HENTAI". luls all around.
I know. I've always said that my argument is this post is very simple, and it's just logic with no advanced technical terms. That's just the way I used to write.

And no, in the note right there on top of my post, I said that I did it for the lulz in this case. The conversation has been very intriguing and good in the other place.

wheelchairman
12-08-2007, 08:44 AM
I have been following the stories and comments surrounding Mr. Scythe Death, and frankly, I'm appalled. What does Scythe Death hope to achieve by repeatedly applying his lips to the posteriors of namby-pamby, frightful dorks? In the first place, we must work together to point out the glaring contradiction between Scythe Death's idealized view of revanchism and reality. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Scythe Death finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, Scythe Death has planted his lieutenants everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Scythe Death's ability to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his sleazy behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint but it also provides irrefutable evidence that I recently informed him that his understrappers appropriate sacred symbols for recalcitrant, two-faced purposes. Scythe Death said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, he wants us to believe that every word that leaves his mouth is teeming with useful information. How stupid does he think we are? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that he craves more power. I say we should give Scythe Death more power -- preferably, 10,000 volts of it. If you read Scythe Death's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that many people think of his rabid, intolerant rodomontades as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which untoward, oppressive gaberlunzies will annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character in the coming days. A second all-too-serious item is that my current plan is to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but my number one priority is to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Scythe Death vehemently denies that, of course. But he obviously would, because his magic-bullet explanations are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. On the surface, it would seem merely that it is legitimate to have misgivings about ignorant traitors who ruin my entire day. But the truth is that if you were to tell Scythe Death that the net effect of his dissertations will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. He is not only immoral, but amoral. To borrow the immortal words of a certain, well-known authority figure, "Scythe Death's traducements violate the rational, enlightened claims of their own enunciatory modality."

(finally an excuse to use the rant-generator: http://www.pakin.org/complaint)

Scythe Death
12-08-2007, 09:27 AM
That stupid rant generator.

What you define as morals are nothing but the misconceived guidelines of an ignorant society hindered by its own standards. What is the truth that supports your predetermined concepts of "good and evil" rather than what is absolutely arbitrary? There's no objective truth behind what you claim to be whole-heartedly so certain in lieu of undergoing empiricism to develop your own philisophy.

Even though your schizophrenic paranoia corrupts your mind into forming irrealistic conspiracy theories, I've always been blunt and straightforward in what I believe in. That goes beyond your predetermined standards that make your existence an empty shell, a burden contributing to the mass of them.

Now moving aside from the dogmatic believes in regard to your false guidelines of life, what could we call our meaning? What could an association of intelligent agents become with the vast infinity of the nature of existence? What else, the combing of it, development; not a life based on fear. Efficiency. Philosophy.

That's the problem with Christian rant generators.

JoY
12-10-2007, 09:38 AM
I'm with TTIG.

also, I seriously despise disrespect for what you don't understand, viewing people who aren't like you as if they're on the other side, should be fought against or ridiculed. just the total complete arrogance & ignorance of it.

Duskygrin
12-10-2007, 11:23 AM
Just a little tidbit of information for people that say the entire Bible is a fallicy and is just a hodge podge of stories:

The Bible talks about a group of people called the Hittites. These were a warrior society that attemted to invade the Hebrew nation from the north. Scientists used this group to try and disprove the Bible. However, here recently, a group of people have been discovered (unearthed) to the north of what was then the Hebrew nation. The name of these people? The Hittites.

And to say that the Bible is garbage is a garbage statement. There are many values that you can take from the Bible and live by, but decide to not call yourself a Christian.

Also, people are entitled to their beliefs, their hope. If they hope in a God that is divine and they believe that he will supply for them, let them. Hope is sometimes the only thing people have.

"Of all the forces that make for a better world none is so indespensible none so powerful as hope. Without hope men are only half alive."-Charles Sawyer

Wow. I'm so in love with that post.

Mister Scythe had better watch out his grammar. Aside from being ungainly, his syntax is just plain wrong at times. I bet he's ugly, too.

Scythe Death
12-10-2007, 04:04 PM
I'm with TTIG.

also, I seriously despise disrespect for what you don't understand, viewing people who aren't like you as if they're on the other side, should be fought against or ridiculed. just the total complete arrogance & ignorance of it.

I understand that shit. I've been through things, but I don't need to lie to myself to make me feel better. I just can't live like that. I repeat, you can find better morals in a book.

lol @ Duskygrin.

AnimalBoy
12-10-2007, 04:08 PM
religion is just a synthetic
frippery, unnecessary in our expanding global cultural efficiency

BustedKnuckles
12-10-2007, 05:38 PM
I repeat, you can find better morals in a book.



Too bad that those morals in a book came from another source much older than it...

*cough*the Bible*cough*

Scythe Death
12-10-2007, 06:29 PM
Too bad that those morals in a book came from another source much older than it...

*cough*the Bible*cough*

Don't make me laugh. Jesus was a mediocre philosopher, a hippy.

batfish
12-11-2007, 02:05 AM
There's the Old Testament too.
Also Jesus was pretty liberal, but I think he was a lot harsher than he's made out to be now. I mean it comes down to follow him or go to hell, according to the New Testament.

A pretty interesting book is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He thinks that there is a moral law that we all know instinctively, irrespective of culture or upbringing, different from our consciences and values instilled in us by society and our parents. Being human, we don't stick to it, and we can choose to ignore it. But God appears in us as a law urging us to do right and making us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong.
I don't know how much of that I believe, but it's an interesting book irrespective of faith. I know that super-brief summary really wasn't convincing, but it takes him about 30 pages to get that out, and I'm not typing out each logical step he makes.

Relying on religion is not necessarily weak, or no more weak than anyone who needs something else (eg. alcohol) to get them through rough times. Religion doesn't bring instant comfort either. If there is an ultimate "goodness", a God, then it must hate much of what humans do. I'm not denying that Christianity brings great comfort to people, but in order to find that comfort they must go through the initial dismay of admitting sin and powerlessness.

Scythe Death, what sort of book do you have in mind? And why a book?

JoY
12-11-2007, 05:08 AM
I understand that shit. I've been through things, but I don't need to lie to myself to make me feel better. I just can't live like that. I repeat, you can find better morals in a book.

lol @ Duskygrin.

I hope you will read this & hear me out, despite your opinion of me & the fact I tend to write walls of text to make myself understood. sorry if this will be long, but I really suck at being to the point.

no, with all respect, you don't understand that shit. religion isn't something you understand. it's not to be understood, not even by people who are religious themselves. it's emotional & instinctive. it's faith, hope & belief. it's something that can't be grasped by our laws of science, that is our current society's belief. & science fails just as much sometimes as religion & is just as much based on earlier observations. why does gravity make an apple that comes loose from the branches of its tree fall to the ground? because we've never seen it going otherwise. why is gravity F [N] = G*(MI[kg]*MII[kg]/r2[m]), followed by F [N] = m[kg]*g[m/s2]? because based on numbers, we humans have defined, named & accepted, variables, we humans have defined, named & accepted, some man calculated it is so. & we believe this is true, because in the past repeated testing showed the forces of gravity & the impact can be approached this way, if you apply & interpret every value constantly & consequently.

so the science human kind created supplied us, humans, with an explanation for gravity. science can't explain everything & whatever it can't explain, we don't understand. but we still acknowledge the presence of things we don't understand, we really have no choice, because there's too much that science hasn't explained for us yet that too obviously exists. so all I need to do in my very limited imperfect possition as a human being, is acknowledge the existence of things I don't understand & accept I'm not all knowing & flawless.

personally.. I don't believe in God, but I'd hate to completely rule out the possibility of his existence. making a statement built on scientific uncertainties would be too much belief for me to handle; either believing He doesn't exist, or believing He does. what I study is based on science & I was educated & brought up to think along these lines; until a hypothesis is scientifically (meaning; repeatedly under objective circumstances) disproved by observation, the hypothesis can't be rejected. by this way of reasoning, science & me wouldn't even rule out the possibility gnomes & elves exist. that's just how science is built; there are more uncertainties, than there are certainties.

my boyfriend is a Christian. a Catholic. I don't understand that shit. it's too damn personal & completely irrational. it's within him, his faith & belief. & I know that inside his "heart", his mind, his thoughts, his "soul", however you view it, I am too. just like God. it's not like God & I share the same seat, or occupy the same spot, but hey... you get the point. & I am not going to even pretend I understand that he loves me. it's as irrational as religion.

the fact he is religious, while I don't share it.. I don't hate it, I don't ridicule it, I don't fight it. he's an amazing person & we're both completely entitled to make our own choices when it comes to this subject & many more. & when you really think about it, is it really a choice to believe in something? I don't think he could choose not to believe in God, or that I could choose to believe in Him. we'd both betray ourselves & our gut feeling, our instincts that tell me He doesn't exist & tell him He does. it's like the way we didn't choose to love each other & can't choose to not love each other. we just do.

JoY
12-11-2007, 06:02 AM
also, Scythe, the rougher times people have been through, the more instable the position of religion becomes, objectively seeing. for some it becomes even more of a certainty that God exists, when religion seems to have helped them to get through hard times, but more often the realisation kicks in that God can't solve our earthly problems, doesn't prevent them from happening & won't be here in person to hold our hand & give us a hug, when there are no earthly friends to do it. even very devoted Christians can lose their faith by experiencing the unfairness of the universe & for direct reasons to believe they won't be spared for being devoted believers in God.

so whatever you went through, unless it's some spiritual experience you're talking about that has brought you closer to a more holy side of universe you never thought existed, it will never be a reason, a trigger to suddenly start believing in God when you were always convinced he doesn't exist.



A pretty interesting book is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He thinks that there is a moral law that we all know instinctively, irrespective of culture or upbringing, different from our consciences and values instilled in us by society and our parents. Being human, we don't stick to it, and we can choose to ignore it. But God appears in us as a law urging us to do right and making us feel responsible and uncomfortable when we do wrong.
I don't know how much of that I believe, but it's an interesting book irrespective of faith. I know that super-brief summary really wasn't convincing, but it takes him about 30 pages to get that out, and I'm not typing out each logical step he makes.


oh I believe it. because in reality it seems to be a lot more simple (less mystical/mysterious) than when you explain it this way, like we've internalised a holy spirit that guides our way. the brain is just an organ, responding to signals. our brain releases a happy hormone when we do well, right, or good. this happy hormone pretty much causes a high. it's a stimulant & it triggers the areas in our brain that give rise to feelings of self-reward, self-worth, et cetera. feelings that need to be from within to be of any value & that we can't just get from our environment, without confirmation from within. we depend on it, or we physically go into a destructive mental state. without happy hormones, we don't know when we've done good, we don't know satisfaction, we don't know reward, we don't know relief & we don't know self-worth.

it's a positive feedback system, but it can be dysfunctional. or what if your entire definition of "doing good" shifts, or is essentially different in your brain from that of others?

wheelchairman
12-11-2007, 06:19 AM
The negation of that is our concept of right and wrong changes all the time. It changes geographically from place to place as well. There are peoples in the world who feel fully justified in doing things we find disgusting and vice versa. There is no universal good and bad. Believing there is gives you an extremely limited view of other cultures and inhibits your judgment so that you can only see them through western judeo-christian values.

JoY
12-11-2007, 06:46 AM
it's an internal definition mostly shaped by & adjusted to our origins, experiences & environment.


...everything is. don't you get me started on Wittgenstein.


there's the more intentional interpretation of "doing good" & the more consequentional view. but no more Kant. on a community level definitions in language can only work with positive reinforcement of your environment. if you consequently call every chair "table", you're bound to get a reaction from your environment that this is incorrect.

"doing good" on an individual level is doing what makes your brain release "happy hormones" that reward your actions with feelings of satisfaction, self-worth, et cetera. seeing your brain adapts to stimuli & grows connections, that become activated by stimulation from a selection of influences & impressions coming from the environment on the owner, this system was made to function according to the definitions in language & values of our environment when it comes to "doing good".

but you probably agree with me, that if this system is dysfunctional (which plays a role in psychiatric disorders like depression, but mainly in OCD), or when it is triggered by an individual interpretation of "good" that is in no way connected to your roots, or environment & is seen moreso as the opposite by YOUR environment in YOUR culture in YOUR time.. it's bound to be problematic.

right?

wheelchairman
12-11-2007, 06:53 AM
I'm not entirely sure what you mean in the last paragraph.

However you missed the point of the above text, which was there is a universal good, that we all have a conscience set to the same values so to speak. And that's just plain wrong.

JoY
12-11-2007, 07:21 AM
uh, yes, I agree with you there.

but maybe there is such a thing in our architecture, something universal we all have.. that when our actions make another person smile/happy, our brain rewards us by giving rise to feelings of satisfaction. what supplies us with positive reinforcement from our environment can partly be universal. when focusing on for instance intentionally doing "good", the consequences don't need to be hugely positive for the action to be good.

if you were in terrible trouble in the middle of.. Mongolia & someone showed up & tried his best to help you, intentionally tried to do good according to his own definition of "good" in his culture & time... for instance, you are terribly sick & someone finds you & takes you in, tries to treat you with herbs to make you better, but it doesn't really do much for you.. you would give him positive reinforcement by smiling & thanking him, am I correct?

wheelchairman
12-11-2007, 07:34 AM
Yes but not everyone would even smile. Or actually if I'm injured (as it appears in your story) I would probably be like "no you stupid idiot, take me to the HOSPITAL) NOW! Ulaan Bataar! Now! Get a donkey!

I mean in that instance you are talking about good from our definition of good. The point is that not everyone shares this definition. I agree with you though that having everyone's culture has a feeling of goodness. But pointing out that everyone has the capacity to feel good is hardly the most shocking of points :p

Also it's too bad you're leaving holland for the vacation, Nina will be visiting us for a few days.

JoY
12-11-2007, 07:44 AM
no, no! I meant that if he has good intentions, you can still be grateful & see his actions as "doing (intentionally) good", even if the action in itself isn't necessarily by your definition "good".

& of course I didn't describe a case where his intentionally good actions caused you any more damage, than if he wouldn't have done anything at all. that would totally complicate my example way too much.

shitshitshit. I would've loved to see the three of you. h8.
<3:(

wheelchairman
12-11-2007, 07:49 AM
But that requires an understanding of his understanding of good. And while you might be able to assume some nuances, it would be impossible unless you had been living with that particular culture for at least a little while.

Oh well maybe next time then. :) It's too bad you're always in another country during vacation though. Break your ankle again!

JoY
12-11-2007, 08:19 AM
no! no! don't be Ivil & wish such evil things upon me! I never want to break my ankle again.:(

it's just my season, y'know? if I could ski in the Netherlands, I would. but it's flat & pretty snowless, so what choice do I have?!

nieh
12-11-2007, 09:09 AM
What you define as morals are nothing but the misconceived guidelines of an ignorant society hindered by its own standards. What is the truth that supports your predetermined concepts of "good and evil" rather than what is absolutely arbitrary? There's no objective truth behind what you claim to be whole-heartedly so certain in lieu of undergoing empiricism to develop your own philisophy.

Even though your schizophrenic paranoia corrupts your mind into forming irrealistic conspiracy theories, I've always been blunt and straightforward in what I believe in. That goes beyond your predetermined standards that make your existence an empty shell, a burden contributing to the mass of them.

...Sky? Have you found the clitoris yet?

batfish
12-11-2007, 09:28 AM
I'm not disagreeing that there are different moral standards between cultures, but I'm not convinced that morals vary as wildly as would make a general "law of decent behaviour" wrong.

When I say "law of decent behaviour" I'm referring to something more fundamental than social customs.

Moralities vary between cultures and civilisations, but as far as I know, never amounting to a total difference. I can't think of a society where running away in battle is admired, or where people are proud of spiting those who have been kindest to them. People differ as to what they should be unselfish to - family, country, everyone - but the main point is that you shouldn't put yourself first.

Jesus
12-11-2007, 10:40 AM
The negation of that is our concept of right and wrong changes all the time. It changes geographically from place to place as well. There are peoples in the world who feel fully justified in doing things we find disgusting and vice versa. There is no universal good and bad. Believing there is gives you an extremely limited view of other cultures and inhibits your judgment so that you can only see them through western judeo-christian values.
I fail to see how the changing of the concept 'of right and wrong' (both in time and place) disproves universal moral grammar (or universal 'good' or 'bad'). Using the same reasoning the changing of (and existence of different) languages would disprove universal grammar.

Differences in outcome of moral development (changes of the concepts) don't disprove the universal human characteristic of it, because our biological constraints can accommodate great variations in the content of moral intuitions. So you end up with partly different cultural/individual notions of good or bad based upon an underlying universal notion of good and bad. Which still leaves room for relativism obviously (luckily!), although under more narrow constraints, the same way universal grammar in language does.

Judging which moral cultural system is better than another is obviously a totally different question (the one least based upon irrational beliefs would be a good start, given that justification seems something people need), but there is a common universal moral grammar behind it.
There is some brilliant research being done on this by Hauser, Pinker, Mikhail, etc.

BustedKnuckles
12-11-2007, 03:14 PM
I find it funny that it said this:

"Religion is Gay."

"Jesus"

wheelchairman
12-12-2007, 02:31 AM
I fail to see how the changing of the concept 'of right and wrong' (both in time and place) disproves universal moral grammar (or universal 'good' or 'bad'). Using the same reasoning the changing of (and existence of different) languages would disprove universal grammar.

Differences in outcome of moral development (changes of the concepts) don't disprove the universal human characteristic of it, because our biological constraints can accommodate great variations in the content of moral intuitions. So you end up with partly different cultural/individual notions of good or bad based upon an underlying universal notion of good and bad. Which still leaves room for relativism obviously (luckily!), although under more narrow constraints, the same way universal grammar in language does.

Judging which moral cultural system is better than another is obviously a totally different question (the one least based upon irrational beliefs would be a good start, given that justification seems something people need), but there is a common universal moral grammar behind it.
There is some brilliant research being done on this by Hauser, Pinker, Mikhail, etc.

Well I was not trying to disprove universal grammar. I was disproving universal good.

Although I have experience with solely western languages that have all been intertwined so thoroughly. So while a universal grammar wouldn't surprise, I have no reason so far to believe it is truly universal when my experience has been mostly Western and not universal in the slightest.

Judging would have no real practical application would it? Judging which moral structure is best. I suppose there are different criteria.

However the universal grammar was never the issue. We were discussing the age old question of materialist vs. idealist philosophical outlooks. A universal grammar has no implication of God like a universal good does. It could simply be a bi-product of evolution or genetics.

Crazy-Taxi-Driver
12-14-2007, 02:02 PM
Religion is not gay!

Everyone should decide what is the best thing for himself.

Think about Christmas.
It's not only about gifts.

Please don't pick all bad things in the Religion.
Everybody have other opinions about Religion. ;)

Sunny
12-16-2007, 10:05 AM
well, i read this thread, and i actually agree with Crazy Taxi Driver or whatever (minus the winky face and the random Christmas thing of course).

honestly, i could not care less about other people's beliefs. if you use religion as a crutch, or because it helps you be a better/happier person, or because you genuinely believe it's the right thing... whatever. i'm going to sound like a dirty hippy, but everyone should just choose whatever path they are happiest with, and it's none of other people's business. period. like, i don't care if you believe in Jesus, or Xenu, or mother earth goddess or whatthefuckever. it's a personal matter and i'm in no place to judge.

i only take issue with people's belief systems if they attempt to push it down my throat. I can't stand it when people try to preach to me, and i take issue with governments outlawing certain things cause GOD SED SO. or killing people cause GOD SED SO.
same goes for atheists, clearly... if you come at me with your "LULS RELIGION IS FOR DUM PEOPLE" shit, expect to have your ass handed to you on a fucking platter. and i'm equally bothered by atheist governments that try to limit freedom of religion (oh hai China).

In other words, religion is not "gay". atheism is not "gay" either. being a pushy, preachy, self-righteous asshole, however....

wheelchairman
12-16-2007, 02:42 PM
You're opinion was summed up by the Irish marxist Connolly. And for those who aren't aware of the debate among the early 20th century marxists, it was Connolly who was actually controversial in saying that "religion is a personal matter and should not be interfered with." Ironically it's still a controversial matter.

And you know, I say this, yet I find Scientologists to be wildly irresponsible, especially if they have children. So I'm still trying to find solace for my blatant contradiction. Either I don't define scientology as a religion, or I become some pervasive asshole.

Sunny
12-16-2007, 03:10 PM
I don't know enough about scientology, really... besides the obvious "lols, xenu" thing and the fact that they harrass people in the subway with "free stress tests". ;D

it might be that i'm a hypocrite, too, because while i consider religion a purely personal matter, i *do* feel that if one's belief system pushes one towards, for example, child abuse, intervention might be necessary.

wheelchairman
12-16-2007, 04:03 PM
Without having researched further, this in my opinion crosses the line.
http://wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=2268

But I mean what can I say, it's a passive passion. Not something I am willing to get up in arms about. But should my opinion be asked...

EDIT: And since I find things like scientology to be more politically based than faith based in reality, I find it disgusting that kids are put into these groups. Like I severely disapprove of any political organizations geared towards minors. (With the exception of the Boy Scouts of America, there aren't that many that go towards minors I don't think.)

Llamas
12-16-2007, 10:47 PM
People like my mom are the kind that give me a bad impression of Christians in the US. Unfortunately, they are the minority of individuals but are the most noticeable. She is the kind of person who doesn't ever think about or do anything that isn't related to her religion. She won't find a damn job because God will take care of everything, and so my sister and brother will probably be given to their dad, who beat up my sister. But my mom has no income and has no intentions of finding one, and she freaks everyone out by talking about how the world is ending and leaving little bible booklets everywhere for people. It just freaks me out, because the kind of churches she goes to house people like her. She used to try to get me to go with her, and she made my sister and brother go. It's creepy to me. I don't generalize and think all religious people are nuts, but religion is often a huge breeding ground for this kind of behavior.

However, I do agree with Sunny in a way. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of religion, or having faith. That truly is a personal matter. The problem lies in a religion's desire to spread. My mom thinks I'm religious, or pretends I am, and told me yesterday that I'm wasting my life, because the only reason "we" are on Earth is to save people and bring them to Heaven.

Sunny
12-17-2007, 05:59 AM
i think anything that differentiates us from others can be breeding ground for trouble if we get too proud or too self-righteous. like, some people are proud of their ethnicity; but then there's people who go around beating up people who are of different origin or claiming that they should be exterminated. there are people who simply define themselves as "heterosexual" and people who bash gay people. and similarly, there's people who believe in god and people who run around shoving god down everyone else's throats.

i'm sorry about your situation being shitty. =/

here's a quote i like that sums up what i've been trying to say about differences... well kind of :]


"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? It is because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind." - j. krishnamurthi

JoY
12-17-2007, 07:11 AM
as I said before, I don't think you can choose whether or not you are religious. it's not rational. it's not like you can wake up some day & think; "hey, you know what? I'm gonna believe in God, starting from.. now!".

that being said, it's truly incredibly useless to waste your time shoving your convictions down other people's throats.

when I talk about religion with my boyfriend & he tells me about his beliefs, his views & the way he feels it enriches his life... well, good for him, I totally support whatever makes the guy happy.<3 but I can't magically adopt his emotions & beliefs, I can't adopt the way he feels. not when it comes to anything, let alone something as subjective as religion. but I love it when he shows me his way of looking at things like religion, a way I don't usually view it. we can debate & have endless discussions on rational subjects & then he can try to convince me all he wants.

Llamas
12-17-2007, 01:56 PM
Sunny, I really like that quote, and it makes a very good point. I think that might be subconsciously part of why I've never found myself attached to a label... I don't necessarily feel like an American, due to my recent heritage, I'm rather moderate and rather agnostic in politics and religion... and while I lean certain ways in both, I do tend not to pick a side, possibly partially because a label does differentiate and cause division.

Joy, strangely enough, in the US, lots of people DO suddenly pick to be religious. I've seen non-Christians "saved" by Christians. It usually happens to people whose lives are completely fucked and they have no other hope... many Christian groups target people like this, because they are very susceptible to it. I remember when I was little and went to church all the time, various members of the church would give testimonies about stuff, and sometimes a person would tell about how their life was going down the shitter, and then so and so came to them and brought them to Jesus, or whatever. You never hear about people saying, "I was making millions of dollars at a job I loved, making weekly donations to charities, loved my wife and kids, life couldn't get any better. And then it did; I found the love of Jesus." But anyway, my point was that people DO strangely come out of nowhere and decide to be religious, and this is exactly why religious people do try to spread faith, because it does often "work". Another thing I've seen happen is that people invite other people to come to church with them on Sundays, and the people end up liking the church, or maybe the people there, and they end up attending and become religious. This seems pretty rare, but it's happened.

I personally went from being very Christian to actually being atheist for a short time to deciding I was agnostic within maybe 6-8 months. Of course, this was aided by the fact that I moved from an ultra religious area to one of the most liberal cities in the US then, and was introduced to many new ideas and new ways of thinking, so I decided to take some time to reevaluate what I believed, and decided that my previous beliefs did not work for me. I imagine it could happen the other way around, too.

Sunny
12-17-2007, 02:30 PM
I remember when I was little and went to church all the time, various members of the church would give testimonies about stuff, and sometimes a person would tell about how their life was going down the shitter, and then so and so came to them and brought them to Jesus, or whatever. You never hear about people saying, "I was making millions of dollars at a job I loved, making weekly donations to charities, loved my wife and kids, life couldn't get any better. And then it did; I found the love of Jesus."


I think a lot of these "conversions" have to do with the fact that religious communities can act as a tremendous support network for people in need. i know someone whose house burned down to the ground. he was an active and respected member of his church, and well... the community pretty much helped him and his family replace all their possessions, gave them tons of cash, etc. correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think he would've received that kind of organized support if it wasn't for his activity in the church. i think the community aspect can be a huge draw for a lot of people, consciously or not.

sKratch
12-17-2007, 03:34 PM
"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? It is because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind." - j. krishnamurthi

I'm just gonna be a douche and point out that this is an antagonizing statement.
Yeah it's true to an extent, though.

Llamas
12-17-2007, 03:48 PM
I think a lot of these "conversions" have to do with the fact that religious communities can act as a tremendous support network for people in need. i know someone whose house burned down to the ground. he was an active and respected member of his church, and well... the community pretty much helped him and his family replace all their possessions, gave them tons of cash, etc. correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think he would've received that kind of organized support if it wasn't for his activity in the church. i think the community aspect can be a huge draw for a lot of people, consciously or not.

Oh, definitely, 100%. But that doesn't really mean that those people don't also believe in the religion at that point. I'm totally aware that the community is a huge part of the draw for a lot of people. Hell, half the point of church is "fellowship" (which my mom seems to think is a verb... she says her friends and her are going to be fellowshipping). My point was just that in a lot of ways, the "tactics" can be effective in bringing people to religion.

wheelchairman
12-17-2007, 03:59 PM
I'm just gonna be a douche and point out that this is an antagonizing statement.
Yeah it's true to an extent, though.
It's also wrong. If all labels have a contradiction (and that part may well be true, contradiction in the form of an "enemy" or "adversary") then it is wrong to assume that all contradictions are antagonistic (seek to destroy the opposite), some may simply be "agonistic" and thus recognize the right to exist of the other.

Some have stated that the key to true democracy is to turn all antagonistic relationships into agonistic ones.

Lodat225
12-17-2007, 08:07 PM
I disagree with everybody.

Anya82
12-18-2007, 11:23 AM
People like my mom are the kind that give me a bad impression of Christians in the US. Unfortunately, they are the minority of individuals but are the most noticeable. She is the kind of person who doesn't ever think about or do anything that isn't related to her religion. She won't find a damn job because God will take care of everything, and so my sister and brother will probably be given to their dad, who beat up my sister. But my mom has no income and has no intentions of finding one, and she freaks everyone out by talking about how the world is ending and leaving little bible booklets everywhere for people. It just freaks me out, because the kind of churches she goes to house people like her. She used to try to get me to go with her, and she made my sister and brother go. It's creepy to me. I don't generalize and think all religious people are nuts, but religion is often a huge breeding ground for this kind of behavior.

that kind of people usually creeps me out! I'm religious. I'm Catholic. I do believe in God, and how he helps out people, and generosity, blah blah blah. But I've met people like the one you describe, and it DOES freak me out.

Things like the Bible are not an instruction manual to be followed with the exact words, it is more like a guideline. And I have a friend who also doesn't look up for a job cause "Jesus will take care". And it is kind of sad: she has a career, is talented, but does nothing. I mean... I think Jesus/God is helping them giving them things like education, house, talent, a career, a family so they can build their own path. But... instead of using all that, they just sit and wait for the Magic Jesus-bus.

I think it is good to believe in God, Jesus, or whatever you want, but don't get blind by those things because you're told to, but because you understand it, and are convinced of following it.

Llamas
12-18-2007, 05:38 PM
Exactly. What you just described seems to be a perfect example of why religion doesn't have to negate intelligence. It makes sense that, if you're religious, you'd feel that God gives you opportunities in life, like job offers or what have you. But these people who don't only have religion answer their questions and fill in the missing pieces, but rather rely on it for their entire being... I don't get how one can not see a flaw in such behavior. You have to live life as what it is. Get a job, make money, take care of yourself... utilize what God apparently gave you. And it also bothers me when religious folks say it doesn't matter if they pollute or destroy the environment, because the world is going to end at the rapture, anyway, and there's no way we can prevent that happening by not polluting. ughwtf.

Sunny
12-19-2007, 06:28 AM
skratch, lovins, you're not being a douche. it's a good point, but i still think the quote is good food for thought. ;z


It's also wrong. If all labels have a contradiction (and that part may well be true, contradiction in the form of an "enemy" or "adversary") then it is wrong to assume that all contradictions are antagonistic (seek to destroy the opposite), some may simply be "agonistic" and thus recognize the right to exist of the other.

Some have stated that the key to true democracy is to turn all antagonistic relationships into agonistic ones.

first of all, i don't think he's saying that all labels have a contradiction or an "enemy" and i'm not necessarily sure where you are getting that. His main point, unless i am mistaken, is that a lot of violence (if not most) stems from separation and fear of "otherness".

you say that not all contradictions are antagonistic, and as a very general statement, that might very well be true. however, to me it is quite apparent that human beings tend to adopt a "us vs. them" mentality, which is fueled by our tendency to constantly label and categorize ourselves and everyone else. From what I've seen, people tend to be terrified of "the Other", be it a black person, a Muslim, a gay person, whatever. And I don't think I need to explain how easily fear turns into violence, or how fear mongering is a very successful tactic based on the concept of the threatening "other". I'm not sure if the prevalence violence and wars would decrease if people didn't put so much emphasis and pride in their constructed identities... but it's certainly something to ponder.

While contradictions don't *have* to be antagonistic, people surely seem to have a hard time with that concept.

i think the idea you mentioned (of getting rid of antagonistic relationships by transforming them) is about as realistic as the concept of destroying labels altogether, which is, uh, not very.

the Alternate
12-27-2007, 01:53 PM
Guys, don't write long posts, it's boring to read.
You can't argue or compare the religion and the science. They speak completely different languages. Everyone makes his own choice.
but surely there will be contradictions because the things are understood differently by the peole who use these languages.
to my mind, religion brings no research in life but settled dogmas...

Lithuanian Offspring
12-27-2007, 02:43 PM
Guys, don't write long posts, it's boring to read.
You can't argue or compare the religion and the science. They speak completely different languages. Everyone makes his own choice.
but surely there will be contradictions because the things are understood differently by the peole who use these languages.
to my mind, religion brings no research in life but settled dogmas...

The discussion is not the comparison of religion or science. As, far as I understand, religion can only give hope to people. Everyone follows some form of religion, whether well established or not. Basic pop culture is a religion, any strong alliance to something is a form of religion. When
you are taking an extra push to fight for some sort of idea, or "thing" you are already displaying some sort of part of belief. So it would be impossible to abolish religion as a concept of belief. But I'm sure the destruction of established religions would not hinder the overall progress of the world. I'm quite sure certain ideas or "dogmas" are not all that bad for people, in that they create some character and a relative point for society to progress from. But yeah, religion is gay.

wheelchairman
12-28-2007, 03:33 AM
first of all, i don't think he's saying that all labels have a contradiction or an "enemy" and i'm not necessarily sure where you are getting that. His main point, unless i am mistaken, is that a lot of violence (if not most) stems from separation and fear of "otherness".

you say that not all contradictions are antagonistic, and as a very general statement, that might very well be true. however, to me it is quite apparent that human beings tend to adopt a "us vs. them" mentality, which is fueled by our tendency to constantly label and categorize ourselves and everyone else. From what I've seen, people tend to be terrified of "the Other", be it a black person, a Muslim, a gay person, whatever. And I don't think I need to explain how easily fear turns into violence, or how fear mongering is a very successful tactic based on the concept of the threatening "other". I'm not sure if the prevalence violence and wars would decrease if people didn't put so much emphasis and pride in their constructed identities... but it's certainly something to ponder.

While contradictions don't *have* to be antagonistic, people surely seem to have a hard time with that concept.

i think the idea you mentioned (of getting rid of antagonistic relationships by transforming them) is about as realistic as the concept of destroying labels altogether, which is, uh, not very.

Well I don't know if he is or not. However it's the inevitable conclusion. Labels are meaningless without contrast. You can't understand something without understanding what it is not.

So any labels have a natural opposite. Not like black vs. white. But any label we have for ourselves, means that anyone of another label is not ourselves and therefore lest trustworthy, more fearful etc. But there are labels that don't bring up these fears that aren't necessarily labels we associate with ourselves. People aren't afraid of the Irish anymore.

Non-antagonistic-democracy isn't a theory I subscribe to. It is however the political model that Chantal Mouffe subscribes to, and she's the one who formulated the us vs. them dichotomy. I don't know if there is a framework for that kind of democracy so I don't know if she has a realistic plan for it. Otherwise it just sounds theoretical.