Thread practicing #1- Religion

[DiebytheSword]

I like how "to Jinx out" is now a thing on these forums.

Sorry, carry on.

http://i.imgur.com/P8eg6.gif

Someone should start an ESF meme book.

 

[Dokutayuu]

A logical debate is what is needed with the athiests, They are after all human beings even if they dont try to get to know there creator. Some one who can offer that answer would need to be able to explain the importance of history.

You're putting all atheists under one umbrella, and implying that they're refusing to accept something that's right in front of them - like that rain falls from clouds. Nobody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if there is a God or not, so it's up to people to make their own conclusions. Many atheists don't believe in any deity because they don't think the evidence available suggests one does. Whilst others may find that a Holy Book and other sources supports the existence of one/many.

There's no denying that religion has had a reasonably significant role in history, but that doesn't support the argument. It just means that we know the beliefs of the people of the past.

 

[Grega]

A logical debate is what is needed with the athiests, They are after all human beings even if they dont try to get to know there creator. Some one who can offer that answer would need to be able to explain the importance of history.

Importance of history. As a religious person i can tell you right now that humans have abused religion to the point of bastardization though all of human history. It was used as an excuse for holocaust, ethnic cleansing and so on. It was all done in the name of the lord and in every single war that happens even today God is used as an excuse on both sides of the battlefield.

Whats needed isnt for atheists to learn of the lord. Its for us believers to stop bastardizing the thing we believe in. Once we get to the point where we stop using God as an excuse for every screwup we make (my our own God given free will no less), then we can start talking to atheists about why they should convert.

 

[Zeonix]

How is that rhetoric? Rhetoric implies a tool in speech or communication which aims at manipulating the reader. I told you my opinion in a very straight-forward fashion. If I used rhetoric I'd convince you of this without ever mentioning it. Apophasis, if you will.

It's rhetoric because you're attempting to persuade people through what you believe to be their sense of logic, though it doesn't accurately reflect the opinion I quoted, as they don't mesh very well. You are saying what you think the forum wants to hear. If this isn't rhetoric, then nothing I've posted has been rhetoric and you're out of your mind.

In any case, if this is all you've gotten out of that post, I think our conversation has come to a conclusion.

@Grega: Religion influenced the holocaust only in that Hitler and Himmler were attempting to create a new religion based on occult philosophies and mythologies and needed something for everyone to focus on, making it easier to manipulate them.

 

[Eon]

Let's ask the internet it's opinion on religion, that's always a fun and wacky idea.

 

[sg2]

Let's ask the internet it's opinion on religion, that's always a fun and wacky idea.

Thank you. =]
I think I did it quite nicely and the debates here are very impressive and fun to browse through.

Onix has a point, though; This thread would have been so much shorter and one-sided had he not taken the role of the religious (despite not being one). Double the credit for having to deal with two very well thought and phrased paragraphs posted by Avenger and Fortnox, which after reading them I was certain there was nothing more Onix could retaliate with.

Personally, regardless of who is right or wrong; I had a lot of fun reading it all.
Who needs TV?

 

[Zeonix]

...I was certain there was nothing more Onix could retaliate with

Oh ye of little faith...

 

[DiebytheSword]

Oh ye of little faith...

Seconded.

 

[Nick_Da_Wizard]

I am spiritual, not religious. As the saying goes I would have to dee it to believe it. nothing exists unless you can see it.

 

[sub]

nothing exists unless you can see it.

There are a great many things I've never personally seen that I know exist.

 

[Viper]

 

[Heron]

I am spiritual, not religious. As the saying goes I would have to dee it to believe it. nothing exists unless you can see it.

Contradiction is made plain in sight, this comment was not hidden under pages of writing like in RICHARD DAWKINS books. Instead this person thought it was ok to do so, as the majority of people here do not believe in God. Now I ask all of you, now you have seen this person give his opinion about 'spirituality'. How many people can you trust who try to disprove God. Let me give you a straight answer. NONE.

As far as I am concerned about 'Spirituality', you cannot grasp any information about it unless you yourself have taken a journey. 'Spirituality' implies seeing and experiencing outside our material world, if you choose to think that the only eyes you have are the ones that are lodged up in your head then my friend you are not spiritual at all.

 

[Avenger]

It's rhetoric because you're attempting to persuade people through what you believe to be their sense of logic, though it doesn't accurately reflect the opinion I quoted, as they don't mesh very well. You are saying what you think the forum wants to hear. If this isn't rhetoric, then nothing I've posted has been rhetoric and you're out of your mind.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware logic was an underhanded form of rhetoric.

 

[Zeonix]

What you believe to be their sense of logic and actual logic are not the same. I can appeal to schizophrenics through their sense of logic without actually being logical, because their perspective is skewed.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[Z Power]

I am spiritual, not religious. As the saying goes I would have to dee it to believe it. nothing exists unless you can see it.

A blind person would believe in nothing I guess. Not even in himself.

 

[Heron]

You're putting all atheists under one umbrella, and implying that they're refusing to accept something that's right in front of them - like that rain falls from clouds. Nobody can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if there is a God or not, so it's up to people to make their own conclusions. Many atheists don't believe in any deity because they don't think the evidence available suggests one does. Whilst others may find that a Holy Book and other sources supports the existence of one/many.

There's no denying that religion has had a reasonably significant role in history, but that doesn't support the argument. It just means that we know the beliefs of the people of the past.

Let's be quite real here, evidence supporting the existance of God will not come to you. Now I hate to say this but the evidence is only avaliable to people who are sincere in there belief, from this point you can say the signs of God are made plain.

To put in in the most general 'wrong' way, first comes the belief in a higher power, then comes the evidence. This is sometimes wrong because I have seen people(scientists) who have come to the conclusion that there is a creator by there OWN scientific research after being convinced there was no God since childhood. But how many many will venture on to find the conclusion for themselves, im afraid this society is making it harder and harder.

Religion and Faith are quite distinct, you could have faith without religion and vice versa, Religion itself without faith leads most of us to agree with this quote:
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Albert Einstein

Faith on the otherhand keeps us intouch with our creator along with religion as a 'Guidance' and nothing more.

Now I assume many athiests here do not know this, they think God would be someone who set a few moral principles which surprisingly EVERY NATION has and told us to attend church on sunday or mosques every friday. Systematic would you agree?

But once faith enters inside the heart you wouldnt need to worry about; how do i put this. Worry about worrying about attending church, because it is something you WANT to do and not NEED to do.

Atheists can find plenty of good material online as everything is avaliable, a debate was only necessary to raise the question to some of you asleep people. I hope one day we will all wake up recognising our creator who loves us all dearly.

 

[Avenger]

Let's be quite real here, evidence supporting the existance of God will not come to you. Now I hate to say this but the evidence is only avaliable to people who are sincere in there belief, from this point you can say the signs of God are made plain.

Special pleading, huh? Convenient.

 

[Grega]

Let's be quite real here, evidence supporting the existance of God will not come to you. Now I hate to say this but the evidence is only avaliable to people who are sincere in there belief, from this point you can say the signs of God are made plain.

To put in in the most general 'wrong' way, first comes the belief in a higher power, then comes the evidence. This is sometimes wrong because I have seen people(scientists) who have come to the conclusion that there is a creator by there OWN scientific research after being convinced there was no God since childhood. But how many many will venture on to find the conclusion for themselves, im afraid this society is making it harder and harder.

Religion and Faith are quite distinct, you could have faith without religion and vice versa, Religion itself without faith leads most of us to agree with this quote:
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Albert Einstein

Faith on the otherhand keeps us intouch with our creator along with religion as a 'Guidance' and nothing more.

Now I assume many athiests here do not know this, they think God would be someone who set a few moral principles which surprisingly EVERY NATION has and told us to attend church on sunday or mosques every friday. Systematic would you agree?

But once faith enters inside the heart you wouldnt need to worry about; how do i put this. Worry about worrying about attending church, because it is something you WANT to do and not NEED to do.

Atheists can find plenty of good material online as everything is avaliable, a debate was only necessary to raise the question to some of you asleep people. I hope one day we will all wake up recognising our creator who loves us all dearly.

I mainly go to church on sundays out of habit and to meet some friends who are mostly away during the rest of the week. So after the 1 hour of mass we spend about 1 hour just standing round talking because we know we wont be seeing each other for another week or so.

Now to roll the dice and see what religion teaches us.

"God is watching over all of us all the time, for if he did not the world would cease to be." translation "The one we praise to be our creator is not smart enough to make a self sustained system."

As a believer on God i must say i simply cant believe that the one responsible for the creation of all to be that incapable.

Or how about the holy trinity. Jesus talks to God and calls him father, with God calling Jesus son. If he was trying to make humans understand that they are one and the same being, then why put on a schizophrenic act.

Now as mentioned in my first post. My beliefs differ from those of your standard catholic person. Does that mean ill be damned for all eternity, by a being that gave me free will so that i may not be bound by anything, simply for having a different view of things compared to the proxy of God on this world and his followers (the pope and the church).

Another thing i call bull****. In my views it doesnt matter what you believe in, who you pray to and what you do as long as you dont cause harm for others.

Basically what im trying to say is. All the knowledge or the scriptures were translated and rewritten over and over and many more times over and over again, to the point that even if they once contained Gods EXACT words, they no longer do so because humanity changed them to fit its own desires.

So let people believe in what they want to believe and help them if they ask for it or need it. But dont "help" them to start believing in something they dont.

 

[Zeonix]

You're exaggerating a bit, aren't you? It's not about insulting or attacking anyone, only about having open discussion.

It's a little seriously to take the notion of you having an open discussion without insulting or attacking anyone when you says things like this:

Because everyone else was tip-toeing around being pussies, talking about religious respect, and he said it as it is. There is absolutely no reason to believe in religion, it's a logical fallacy, it's stupid.

Calling something stupid and agreeing with Avenger's inflammatory post, while saying anyone who doesn't agree with religion in the thread but didn't mount an assault on it was tip toeing and being pussies seems slightly like an attack and insult.

Now I didn't say I agreed that it was a mental illness, I just found it amusing that he was so outspoken and am glad that he is.

Saying, "He said it as it is" suggests, to me, that you agree with him. Because as it is implies what he stated was reality.

This is a genuinely interesting perspective. I understand that most ordinary Christians today aren't going to burn witches and try to exorcise demons, of course. But I think it's important that people understand the reason that Christianity is such a big part of our society is due to bloodshed and cruelty. In some ways it's a betrayal to your heritage, whatever that may be. Your traditional culture has been replaced by this manipulative, dogmatic religion and people are really happy that this is the case. It's a sad sight to see.

I can't tell if you're talking about my heritage specifically or the nation in general. In either case, democracy became as prevalent as it did at the tip of a sword and spear. I think we can agree the end result is quite favorable. I've heard it claimed that Christianity itself isn't bad, but that its co-opted in order to manipulate the masses. And then I hear that the religion itself is the problem. Which is it? Is the religion itself rotten or are the psychopaths who wield it like a sword at fault?

I'm not an idiot, I actually investigated the sources and chose the one I did carefully. Two things; Firstly, the investigation you cited asks whether someone "has a religion", ratherr than whether they "believe in god". That would include many other religions such as, obviously, Buddhism which doesn't as such have a god.
Secondly, none of the sources we're using are actually valid as all of the links are old and dead. They can't actually be confirmed, unless perhaps you want to do some serious Google trawling.

While Buddhism doesn't believe a God is at work, it certainly focuses on higher beings/lesser gods, life after death, other planes of existence, etc. It is a religion where the focal point is not a supreme deity, but it is still religion, and all religions are intertwined to the point where many religions are the offspring of the fractured religions before them. I count them as being part of the whole, and not separate.

I'm not sure what post you're referring to. Now this isn't really going anywhere and I don't see any actual objectives on either side of the discussion, the problem I have this this; I engage in discussion to challenge myself and to try to educate others, to put one another's theories to a test. To me winning an argument isn't the objective, finding the truth is. To this end attacking the other party in an argument is pointless.
You, on the other hand, seem to argue for pointless reasons, you just seem like you want to bait and troll people. You don't really have a point to make, you just get aggressively involved in a discussion for no reason, and it seems to me you're more interested in winning an argument than whatever the content of the discussion actually is.

The post that asks that you provide theists with parameters with which to test the existence of their deity, which would serve to hone both their and your definition of what constitutes a supreme deity. It'd probably end up turning into a discussion of whether or not a thing that created the multiverse in the way that one creates a video game would constitute a supreme deity as it would, in fact, be the creator of all that we know. Or the idea, which most people seem to ignore entirely, that a supreme deity would not be bound by the rules placed on it's creation, especially if said rules are universe-specific, as seems to be the case.

How have you challenged yourself in this thread? Who's mind have you changed and whom have you educated? Your entrance into this conversation was to put down religion, to call it stupid, and to state what Avenger said was as it is. These are not neutral statements. You labeled yourself a militant atheist. Your initial statements do not contradict that self-assessment.

I have explained several times my purpose in this thread. If you chose not to read those posts, or chose to ignore them entirely, that is on you. If preventing a circle-jerk, as this place tends to become when religion is involved, is pointless to you, then perhaps you're not as neutral and objective as you believe. There are three sides to every story. You and Avenger have shown us one perspective. I have attempted to argue another. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it tends to be in life. If you feel like you've been trolled or baited, it is a reflection on you; not I.

Blatant intolerance annoys me. Farcical behavior annoys me more. You're batting two for two.

 

[FalconFury]

So this is all for me then? since i don't have good grammar and you guys already say i don't and you still want me to do it?

Naw, i will stick with my original grammar which is called Yo waz up.