Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 131

Thread: Am I becoming a complete asshole?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    1,605


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alison View Post
    I hate getting onto the subject of religion, especially with family.

    Personally I'm agnostic (but leaning more toward being atheist). Maybe that's because all this Catholicism shite has been battered into me from day one, and I'm scared into thinking "But....what if? Then I'll be burning in Hell (if it exists)". Quite a few people in my family are nuns and the rest are mostly all very religious. I find it remarkably stupid that my aunt travels around Europe for the soul reason of going on pilgrimages and some of them waste their time going to church twice a week.

    Even if I did believe in a higher being, I hope I would still be against the concept of organised religion. I mean, how are we supposed to know which religion is correct (if any). And then, all the hate that goes on merely because the other people have a different view of a thing that nobody can even prove exists. argh.

    I hate the fact that so many Irish despise each other based simply on whether they are catholic or protestant. I'm lucky that seen as I live in Cork I'm far away from all that crap, but I do have a few friends who are very "GARR fuck protestants". Frustrating.
    Does there need to be a correct religion?
    Could you consider yourself a Catholic without believing in Heaven and Hell?
    Do you need to prove god's existence to believe?
    And Catholics hating Protestants is like Israeli hating Palestinans, it has to do with mistakes done in the past, not with religion. Not anymore. You'd hate any criminal who does harm to you, no matter what religion.
    Becoming a nun or a priest is still a riddle to me. I have no idea why people should do that. Maybe guilt or repentance.
    Do you think you‘d sell your soul
    To just have one thing to turn out right?

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ixnay On The Hombre
    Posts
    1,574


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrconeman View Post
    I don't see why the (albeit rather immature) point that believing in God is comparible to believing in the Easter Bunny or Peter Pan, or Batman, is so quickly disregarded, because it's completely true.
    I'd say that's a bit far-fetched.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrconeman View Post
    I just don't want to get into a classic Religious debate "YES HE DOES" "PROVE IT" "NO" "THEN HE DOESNT" "YES HE DOES" etc etc.
    But in fact it's a valid point that can make a religious debate invalid.

    This is a very complicated subject to discuss basically because an atheist is unwilling to accept the beliefs of a religious person just as much as the religious person is reluctant to listen to what the atheist has to say. You could probably put your own words in a religious person's mouth and maybe you'd get some general idea of what that person might feel about atheism/anti-theism. I'm not speaking for anyone, it's just that displaying your intolerance of religion is not the best thing to do, especially if you expect someone else to be tolerant of your own viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by PilZ-E View Post
    Err... anyway you look at it, it is churches dictating the way others live based on their religious beliefs. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. What do you mean 'it's not religion, it's extremism based on the Bible?' Everything about religion is based on the Bible.
    Well, I don't think that everything about religion in its form today is based on the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harleyquiiinn View Post
    It's easy to be homophobic and claim it's because of your religion when really, it's because you're intolerant. And not fair to, I think, most religious people who aren't.
    Of course some people use religion as an excuse for being intolerant but as a matter of fact being gay is wrong according to the Bible. And should a person who sees it as something wrong be considered homophobic?
    And if this post offends you, just don't read it...

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,140


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disclaimer_07 View Post
    Of course some people use religion as an excuse for being intolerant but as a matter of fact being gay is wrong according to the Bible. And should a person who sees it as something wrong be considered homophobic?
    My spontaneous answer would be yes. But I guess as long as you don't throw stones or try to pass laws to rule other people's life, it doesn't matter.

    A lot of things are wrong according to the Bible. Christians made a lot of compromise through centuries (as they should, since they are not whackjobs), which is very logical, considering it's a human work and as such, it should evolved. From what I understood, the Bible was written by people relating an oral religion. Wouldn't you say that it's possible that some part of it may be subjected to interpretation ? And would you say that since the Bible says only a man with another man, woman homosexuality is ok ? because I didn't see the extremists being nicer to lesbians...

    I mean, I know the Bible says that a man having sex with another man is an abomination but it says the same thing for pork meat. With that exact same word "abomination". Still, catholics eat pork, don't they ?

    Also, one more thing that makes me say that it just disguised intolerance is that I don't see these guys getting all crazy and demonstrative for death penalty (if someone talks about abortion, we'll have them all...). And the Bible absolutely says that killing is wrong, right ? What about sunday work ? Sunday work is very very wrong... Why don't they go demonstrate that strongly to pass a law for that ? (or do they ? )

    Short version: Either you apply a text litterally, either you admit that not everything in it is fundamental. Considering Christians made compromise before, trying to rule society based on the litteral interpretation of a 2000 year old text is disguised extremism.
    Last edited by Harleyquiiinn; 08-03-2010 at 09:25 AM.
    ___________________________________________

    All the Beautiful Things you do

    Respect my authoritah !

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ixnay On The Hombre
    Posts
    1,574


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harleyquiiinn View Post
    I mean, I know the Bible says that a man having sex with another man is an abomination but it says the same thing for pork meat. With that exact same word "abomination". Still, catholics eat pork, don't they ?
    Some statements from the Old Testament seem to be ruled out by the New Testament from which we can conclude that eating pork is allowed - Jews don't eat pork because they don't accept the New Testament. Sure, we can't always take everything literally, but that one is stated pretty clearly.
    And if this post offends you, just don't read it...

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    9,437


    Default

    I have something else I'll write later, but for now I'll say that most of the 'rules' people labor under - from pork to gay people - are from Leviticus, which is definitely some old-school Testament. By that logic if the treatment of one rule is invalidated, so should they all. It's precisely the nature of this rigid pick-and-choose approach which differentiates extremists from others.
    Thibault's New Music Site!
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelchairman
    Those wool-headed buffoons have more pride than a Shaido with one goat.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,140


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T-6005 View Post
    I have something else I'll write later, but for now I'll say that most of the 'rules' people labor under - from pork to gay people - are from Leviticus, which is definitely some old-school Testament. By that logic if the treatment of one rule is invalidated, so should they all. It's precisely the nature of this rigid pick-and-choose approach which differentiates extremists from others.
    you're frustrating T-6005. It seems that everytime I'm trying to express something, you manage to say it much more clearly than me.
    ___________________________________________

    All the Beautiful Things you do

    Respect my authoritah !

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    9,437


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harleyquiiinn View Post
    you're frustrating T-6005. It seems that everytime I'm trying to express something, you manage to say it much more clearly than me.
    Well, in all honesty it was your post that made me think of it.

    Now to collect my thoughts.

    What I think I dislike the most about people who refute religion and sneer at the faithful is that, in their minds - that's pretty much most of the people in this thread - the argument has become one of rationality versus irrationality. That is, the argument has become "Because this is an irrational belief and I am a rational person, I do not believe it. Anyone who does believe it is therefore irrational." Richard and Pilz-E have essentially made this exact point several times.

    As an offshoot it makes you think you're open-minded about something when you aren't.

    The trouble with this argument is that we can't actually trust our minds to be rational in any true sense. There's a bunch of research on the ways in which the mind works that highlights our innate inability to apply rationality to our surrounding in a consistent way - and, more importantly, to learn from our mistakes for the next time we are in a given situation. There are a few good people for this, but I personally enjoy Dan Ariely's TED talk on the subject. It doesn't deal particularly with religion, but they only gave the guy twenty minutes. In the talk, he shows us one of those optical illusions in which two colors appear different, and yet once you erase the surroundings, you see that they are in fact the same. Put the surroundings back, however, and in Ariely's own words, "it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute."

    The same goes for scientific arguments. We easily dismiss religious people's explanations of "we don't know that it doesn't exist" as irrational misunderstandings of the scientific method. Yet we often treat theories as facts - we accept the existence of the atom because it appears to explain the phenomena we observe, and we continue to build our scale model of the universe by tacking on new discoveries and observations to what is essentially an intellectual rather than a physical construct. Richard mentioned the tentative application of thermodynamics to explain the theory of gravity rather than what we simply accepted as mass attraction. Dark energy has been postulated to explain the expanding rate of the universe.

    Damn, guys - the last people to expand their model of the universe so much while keeping its constants were the geocentrists - they added smaller and smaller circular variations to the observable orbits of stars and planets (what they called the Celestial Spheres) to account for retrograde motion. That's when the Earth cuts inside other planets' orbits and they appear to be moving backwards for a short time.

    So I guess we can't be sure that it is atoms and not tiny strings that make up matter. We can't be sure that it isn't, either. That seems to parallel another argument pretty strongly, to my mind.

    As for the argument that science moves forward - that's a non-argument. Religion moves forward and develops too. The Catholic Church of today is (thankfully) not the Catholic Church of the 1200s. More importantly - it shows religious organization willing to change over time. Even the fundamentalists of today have very little in common with the classical Church's doctrine as we know it.

    I never thought I'd be the guy who had to end up defending religion. But you guys are pretending to not be bigots when you are. Holding to science doesn't make you right. I won't say it makes you wrong, either - I'm a (Non-Nye) science guy - but all you're doing with your arguments is alienating the people you pretend to be talking to. The foundation of science isn't the fact - it's the scientific method. That method implies change in knowledge based on experimentation. Religion - and not just Christianity, which you seem to have a mad-on for, but the plethora of them that exist - is a method of explanation as well as an ethical vehicle. Claiming that you 'know' the facts is not a valid comparison.

    Do you know what you think you know? Well, you don't know yet.

    In the end, the rationality and open-mindedness you think you're exhibiting is no such thing. It's a "science's penis is larger than religion's penis" argument. It excludes social change and dialogical communication in favor of theoretical fortifications in which you basically wave bright banners that proclaim how right you are.

    In other news, you're all better than that. So have a conversation - maybe you'll find a religious nut who is completely cut off from your arguments. Nothing's going to happen there - just shrug it off and move on. The conversations you're looking to have can't happen with just anyone. In the same way, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you just dig in your heels as conversation swings your way?

    Seriously, what's the worst case scenario? You become religious? Please.

    EDIT - I was distracted, so forgive any disjointedness. Now I have to go get dressed.
    Last edited by T-6005; 08-03-2010 at 01:33 PM.
    Thibault's New Music Site!
    Quote Originally Posted by wheelchairman
    Those wool-headed buffoons have more pride than a Shaido with one goat.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ixnay On The Hombre
    Posts
    1,574


    Default

    Now I just want to say that the above post is by far the best one I've read in this thread up to this point.
    And if this post offends you, just don't read it...

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,078


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrconeman View Post
    I don't want to get into debates about peoples belief systems or why they think mine is wrong, like with the poster above this, considering the board, and most of it's useful members being gone, it's not like there would be any point anyway.
    You went on a diatribe about how you are intolerant of religion and I responded with why I'm tolerant. I didn't talk about my belief system or how yours was wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovellamas View Post
    Karin made a very good point that got overlooked, and I made a similar point in the other thread that got overlooked - a vast majority of religious people are not fucking whackjobs. I may not agree with them, and I may not fully always respect their opinions, but most of them are just normal people trying to get by in life. They just view things differently than I do.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    Maybe not to you. To me they are all whackjobs. It's not about how nice they are as people, or how otherwise normal they may appear to be. And it's not about how respectable some religions or belief systems may seem, which is something T was kind of talking about. It's that they all believe in something without proof. They have faith which is fundamentally irrational. They could have the best religion ever promoting nothing but love and compassion and actually live up to the ideals, with each follower being the epitome of what a human should be. And I'd still think they're all whackjobs.
    All of you are failing to recognize that science does the same thing. We come up with theories. Why are they theories? Because we can't find a way to prove them, only ways to prove that the other thing isn't true, yet we teach them to students and other members of the science world as if they were fact (despite there being 'Theory' in the name and all). Gravity is a theory to explain why it is that that the ball always hits the ground. We've all taken it as fact for hundreds of years, but one guy writes a massive paper about some other idea about what it may be and there are fireworks in the science world. Theories are used and preached to others even though there is no evidence proving without a doubt that it is right. Why do you then call people who believe in god whackjobs without there being hardfast evidence of His existence?
    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565 View Post
    Or what? Or you'll leave as soon as someone returns your rudeness and delete all your posts? I'm so scared.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gulag
    Posts
    1,158


    Default

    So who's up for some good 'ole church burnings?
    HAVE YOU EVER GONE AWAY with ONE HUNDRED PUNKS to have THE WORST HANGOVER EVER?
    “Trust me, mate. Stingrays can't swim backwards.”~ Steve Irwin
    Quote Originally Posted by Harleyquiiinn View Post
    That sucks. But it's not a surprise, I read an article which says that a lot if studies show that death is really bad for your health...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jojan View Post
    Who is Blowjob Armstrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jojan View Post
    Condoms, you and I.
    Quote Originally Posted by coke_a_holic
    Cockin' and Jockin' since July 2005

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •