Really though, fanatics like that make me laugh. They are the people that support the stupid stereotypes that sensible religious people have to deal with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why's it okay for people like you to diss my beliefs that the bible is bullshit and don't accept any of it but its accepted at face value for you because you believe the bible?
My beliefs are different so fucking what. I do not support religion in any way shape or form - you do do. You believe, I do not.
It would seem that we're both either side and the DaVinci believers are in the middle being open-minded.
because aethists/non-believers tend to be much more vocal, crass, rude, and oftentimes completely insulting or beligerent when expressing their views about religion. it's not often i see people disagree with religion while being respectful of the people who do believe.
Well, there isn't any more reason to believe in God than to believe in Santa Claus. People just tend to be disrespectful to the guy who's talking to the voices in his head.
Sonic not true at all. When did I try and pass my beliefs onto anyone else? I didn't, thank you. My first point which was:
[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness it is fiction, but so is the bible in my eyes. It isn't worth the paper its printed on yet people live their lives by it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That the book is getting ridiculed for being totally fiction (nevermind its content) and because it doesn't agree with their book. My point was that it was a work of fiction on fiction - so it didn't bother me.
Sorry if I angered anyones beliefs. Sorry if people got the wrong end of the stick in thinking I wanted them to take on my beliefs.
[ QUOTE ]
because aethists/non-believers tend to be much more vocal, crass, rude, and oftentimes completely insulting or beligerent when expressing their views about religion. it's not often i see people disagree with religion while being respectful of the people who do believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you have met the wrong people then. I would not go as far as saying that they tend to do so, because there aren't to many options that you will notice.
If you are not a believer you are automatically taking a critical point of view towards this subject (because as a free thinker you can) and of course you will have people that will rudly bring forward their opinion because at the end of the day it is just a topic that you talk about and with this particular topic it is easyer to say that you don't approve than think about it and explore it (allthough you can't really expect that anyway, it eats shitloads of time) and everybody gets confronted with it in some point of their life so you do have quite a broad base of ppl that have at least wasted one thought on it.
Mix all that with a bit of insecurity (doesn't have to be major) or bad exp. with the subject and you will very easly get very rude examples.
So don't bother setting up a rule like that for yourself because you will automatically be missing out on an interesting conversation or something that could have come to your mind or anything else while you where slightly nudged by this setting you have in your head.
While I certainly support anyone's right to believe in whatever it takes to keep them warm and fuzzy, so long as it doesn't infringe upon my same rights, Christianity does have a long running and ongoing history of ramming it down non-believers' throats.
Come to me with a story about a divine being that you can't detect with any of your senses (unless you have been fasting, taking drugs etc. so you really aren't in a reasonable state of mind - I know what a mild case of hypoglycemia can do to my perception) where incredible things supposedly took place over two thousand years ago.
We all know how the game "telephone" works.
When the Bible was commissioned and compiled, it was 5 centuries after the death of Christ. For comparison: With our advanced database systems, internet, and instant communications, how much do we really know about the 16th century? Could we go into detail (and I use 'detail' loosely here) as lengthy as what is compiled in the Bible and still be accurate? I really doubt it.
My uncle once was poking at me (yet again) about the Bible, in his carefree and mind numbingly idiotic way that I should read it because it's alot like Lord of the Rings. I asked him, "Oh, you mean it's like Lord of the Rings because it's complete fantasy?" I've actually read a good amount of the Bible as a kid but sometimes I have to remind him of what a tool he can be.
See there's this Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is the creator of all we can detect with our senses. First he created a mountain, trees, and a midget. Then the rest of us and the universe.
Now for those of you who've read the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you know about the mountain, the trees, and the midget. He didn't create them first though - that's just an example of how easy it is to distort facts - even on the space-age internet!
So when someone asks/tells me to believe in something that they can't back up with any credibility, and not only is it more far-fetched than Lord of the Rings and much less coherent and reasonable, then to Christians I say: p'shaw. The burden of proof is upon YOU. You can pretty much expect mockery. "Let the one of you who is faultless cast the first stone." -JC
Here's a great example of trickses. I'm with my girlfriend (now ex) who is Christian. We're at the big church the week of Christmas enjoying various performances that they're putting on that week. That night was a Big Band which was quite good - till halftime. Then they launch into The Schpiel. [paraphrasing] "We're doing great things in Thailand. We've brought hundreds of Thai people into the fold. We feed them, clothe them and teach them about Jesus!" (Cheers from the audience) "These people become so enraptured with the Word and it is such a beautiful, beautiful experience to behold."
Ok. Say I'm living in a shanty in a squalid village in Thailand. I'm hungry and bedraggled from the chronic poverty. Someone brings me a big bowl of rice and vegetables and a new sarong and tells me Jesus brought them. Who am I gonna love? Jesus! Amen.
That's just not playing fair. You bring them up to the same level of sophistication and education as you, THEN tell them about Jesus. That's fair.
Vermillion, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but provocation? Try 2000 years of it. Thanks for the info though. It's still an interesting story to me because I was brought up with it.
sledgy : really, the point of the bible isn't to be a 100% accurate historical reference, it's mostly for the lessons of christianity. the old testament (which obviously can't be taken literally) was there to show us how it once was. then jesus christ arrived and taught humans to be kind. i think a lot of people view it in the wrong way (religious and atheist).
and honestly, i can't prove to you God exists, and you can't prove that God doesn't exist, so what exactly is wrong with spreading what you believe? i wouldn't say it hurts them in any way, and it probably promotes peace among them. how many atheist groups get together a bunch of money to travel to thailand to help people out?
Sonic: With regard to your final point, ever heard of the Red Cross? Or maybe the World Health Organisation?
From the WHO's website: "WHO's objective, as set out in its Constitution, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health."
Now isn't that a much better way of going about it than providing the same aid, but saying that it came from a nonspecific entity or deity? It's humans helping other humans. You don't need Jesus for that.
I was speaking more of something equivilent to church sized groups that raise money personally to go help others.
The thing is, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not right or something doesn't exist. No one in the world could convince me of anything other than what I believe, and it's not because of what I was taught or raised by (used to be atheist), it's because of personal conviction and experience. I may never be able to provide proof to you, but it's proof to me.
They could do that without saying it's from Jesus though, right?
I mean, if they're raising money to help people worse off than them, then they're good people, yeah?
Since they're good people, why do they need to say they're doing it for any other reason than kindness and helping people out?
You should help because you can help, not in order to get more people believing what you believe.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics
Good example Mop. But don't you think that a person, that doesn't nessarily have to be to evil or to good (an average "mentaly healthy" human beeing) can turn to "good" person because religion inspired him.
Sonic, that's a great point and it's great that the Thai's are benefiting from it. Without this particular group of Christians visiting Thailand on a membership drive, the people living there wouldn't get the cookie. It's the self-serving nature of the trip that makes me call bullshit.
How likely do you think it would be to go to a developed nation and get the same conversion numbers using conventional tactics? In Thailand and other struggling places it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
And I do agree that the Bible contains some valuable parables but many, many people take the Bible just as literally as they can swallow it.
I think Jesus' message can be summed up into one supremely important Commandment: Do unto others. I think the Q'uran has something similar too if I recall correctly. If everyone followed just that one the world would be a much, much better place.
[ QUOTE ]
But don't you think that a person, that doesn't necessarily have to be too evil or too good (an average "mentally healthy" human being) can become a "good" person because religion inspired him?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm sure that can happen. Just like an average mentally healthy person can be inspired to do a good deed just because of an advert on TV or a letter in a newspaper ... I've seen non-religious adverts on TV and in magazines asking people to donate money for charities to give to good causes ... that sort of thing can spur a person on to do a good deed. Or it could be anything really. It's not like a little religion of any sort is the only thing which will get people off their asses and doing good deeds.
Bear in mind that for however many hundreds of people who do a good deed in the name of any religion, there are also those (a minority for sure, but still there), who are prepared to kill and cause havoc in the name of their religious beliefs. Who's to say that without religion, those people would act on their beliefs and commit evil deeds in the name of their beliefs?
That is true sledgy. It seems a lot of religious people are more concerned with following the book exactly rather than following the message and worrying about being a good human being.
And Mop, I see your point, but I think that introducing them to religion will benefit them for the most part. They will most likely become better people, and have something greater to hope for. And the argument of people killing in the name of religion doesn't really apply to civilized society anymore. I know that back in the day, Catholics and other Christians killed lots of people for the wrong reasons, but noawadays, Christians in civilized places are very peaceful and for the most part don't shove anything down anyone's throat. The argument of "religion kills" mostly applies to the fanatic muslims and similar groups who feel its their way or death, and haven't learned to live in harmony with the people who share the world with them.
A true catholic tends to have a personal relationship with his thoughts on the subject. The public view of catholics forcing religion is actually from an entirely different group. Typically baptists or born again christians are the ones advertising the system openly.
As I often doubt my beliefs, and question the churches actions I have to say that what it was turned into in the past century is nothing what it was meant to be. And I know i'm not alone. This reaction prompts the fanatics to push harder, when in fact they are simply turning us farther away from our religion. At the very minimum it was only supposed to be a demonstration of good will and a common thought process to meet there. The strict rules are a form of discipline usually based on factual research about how the negative actions we avoid cause more life hardships. It's far more systematic and ritualistic than it needs to be. I understand giving praise if indeed you are catholic, but I would much rather just sit with like minded folks and share experiance and wisdom politly. Reading Psalms and singing really does'nt do much for modern day life anymore, hence why I do think more athiests exsist now. They don't really see any benefit for it. This denotes them as semi-selfish and could explain the general rudeness. Meh, i'm done. Thanks for the rants.
Not to start a war, but Cain is an example of why some Catholics say Athiests are extrmely rude. I actually have no idea why he has'nt been banned from this forum, as he never has anything positive to say.
As far as the 'Free Thinker' thing, just to play devils advocate, says to me you have no direction or goals. Not really speaking on religion, but moral wise. I used to be one, so I kinda see it from both sides.
[ QUOTE ]
They could do that without saying it's from Jesus though, right?
I mean, if they're raising money to help people worse off than them, then they're good people, yeah?
Since they're good people, why do they need to say they're doing it for any other reason than kindness and helping people out?
You should help because you can help, not in order to get more people believing what you believe.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics
[/ QUOTE ]
without religion you wouldn't even have a definition of good and evil that has any legitimation at all beside the fact the the one who came up with it likes it. Or to quote Dostojewski: "If god doens't exist, everything is permitted." But then again if you don't believe in a religion, this definition of good and evil is just something someone came up with, so that won't convince you
alright, i think this is enough for now. thanks everybody for coming, i'll see you all next time something religious-y gets posted and begged to be closed!
now you can all stop arguing about religion and all agree at what an insensitive, power-crazy moderator i am.
LordScottish: Even if God does exist, everything is still permitted.
Someone has to come up with a definition of good and evil, religion did that, and the people who came up with it like it. Without religion, someone else would come up with an almost identical definition for them, and people would have liked it fine.
"Good" and "evil" have nothing whatsoever to do with God.
Replies
Frank the Avenger
Just curious.
Really though, fanatics like that make me laugh. They are the people that support the stupid stereotypes that sensible religious people have to deal with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why's it okay for people like you to diss my beliefs that the bible is bullshit and don't accept any of it but its accepted at face value for you because you believe the bible?
My beliefs are different so fucking what. I do not support religion in any way shape or form - you do do. You believe, I do not.
It would seem that we're both either side and the DaVinci believers are in the middle being open-minded.
[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness it is fiction, but so is the bible in my eyes. It isn't worth the paper its printed on yet people live their lives by it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That the book is getting ridiculed for being totally fiction (nevermind its content) and because it doesn't agree with their book. My point was that it was a work of fiction on fiction - so it didn't bother me.
Sorry if I angered anyones beliefs. Sorry if people got the wrong end of the stick in thinking I wanted them to take on my beliefs.
because aethists/non-believers tend to be much more vocal, crass, rude, and oftentimes completely insulting or beligerent when expressing their views about religion. it's not often i see people disagree with religion while being respectful of the people who do believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you have met the wrong people then. I would not go as far as saying that they tend to do so, because there aren't to many options that you will notice.
If you are not a believer you are automatically taking a critical point of view towards this subject (because as a free thinker you can) and of course you will have people that will rudly bring forward their opinion because at the end of the day it is just a topic that you talk about and with this particular topic it is easyer to say that you don't approve than think about it and explore it (allthough you can't really expect that anyway, it eats shitloads of time) and everybody gets confronted with it in some point of their life so you do have quite a broad base of ppl that have at least wasted one thought on it.
Mix all that with a bit of insecurity (doesn't have to be major) or bad exp. with the subject and you will very easly get very rude examples.
So don't bother setting up a rule like that for yourself because you will automatically be missing out on an interesting conversation or something that could have come to your mind or anything else while you where slightly nudged by this setting you have in your head.
by the way, when I was talking about fanatics in my original post, i was talking about the people who freaked out over the movie, not you or atheists
Come to me with a story about a divine being that you can't detect with any of your senses (unless you have been fasting, taking drugs etc. so you really aren't in a reasonable state of mind - I know what a mild case of hypoglycemia can do to my perception) where incredible things supposedly took place over two thousand years ago.
We all know how the game "telephone" works.
When the Bible was commissioned and compiled, it was 5 centuries after the death of Christ. For comparison: With our advanced database systems, internet, and instant communications, how much do we really know about the 16th century? Could we go into detail (and I use 'detail' loosely here) as lengthy as what is compiled in the Bible and still be accurate? I really doubt it.
My uncle once was poking at me (yet again) about the Bible, in his carefree and mind numbingly idiotic way that I should read it because it's alot like Lord of the Rings. I asked him, "Oh, you mean it's like Lord of the Rings because it's complete fantasy?" I've actually read a good amount of the Bible as a kid but sometimes I have to remind him of what a tool he can be.
See there's this Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is the creator of all we can detect with our senses. First he created a mountain, trees, and a midget. Then the rest of us and the universe.
Now for those of you who've read the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you know about the mountain, the trees, and the midget. He didn't create them first though - that's just an example of how easy it is to distort facts - even on the space-age internet!
So when someone asks/tells me to believe in something that they can't back up with any credibility, and not only is it more far-fetched than Lord of the Rings and much less coherent and reasonable, then to Christians I say: p'shaw. The burden of proof is upon YOU. You can pretty much expect mockery. "Let the one of you who is faultless cast the first stone." -JC
Here's a great example of trickses. I'm with my girlfriend (now ex) who is Christian. We're at the big church the week of Christmas enjoying various performances that they're putting on that week. That night was a Big Band which was quite good - till halftime. Then they launch into The Schpiel. [paraphrasing] "We're doing great things in Thailand. We've brought hundreds of Thai people into the fold. We feed them, clothe them and teach them about Jesus!" (Cheers from the audience) "These people become so enraptured with the Word and it is such a beautiful, beautiful experience to behold."
Ok. Say I'm living in a shanty in a squalid village in Thailand. I'm hungry and bedraggled from the chronic poverty. Someone brings me a big bowl of rice and vegetables and a new sarong and tells me Jesus brought them. Who am I gonna love? Jesus! Amen.
That's just not playing fair. You bring them up to the same level of sophistication and education as you, THEN tell them about Jesus. That's fair.
Vermillion, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but provocation? Try 2000 years of it. Thanks for the info though. It's still an interesting story to me because I was brought up with it.
-Touched By His Noodly Appendage
and honestly, i can't prove to you God exists, and you can't prove that God doesn't exist, so what exactly is wrong with spreading what you believe? i wouldn't say it hurts them in any way, and it probably promotes peace among them. how many atheist groups get together a bunch of money to travel to thailand to help people out?
Sonic: With regard to your final point, ever heard of the Red Cross? Or maybe the World Health Organisation?
From the WHO's website: "WHO's objective, as set out in its Constitution, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health."
Now isn't that a much better way of going about it than providing the same aid, but saying that it came from a nonspecific entity or deity? It's humans helping other humans. You don't need Jesus for that.
I was speaking more of something equivilent to church sized groups that raise money personally to go help others.
The thing is, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it's not right or something doesn't exist. No one in the world could convince me of anything other than what I believe, and it's not because of what I was taught or raised by (used to be atheist), it's because of personal conviction and experience. I may never be able to provide proof to you, but it's proof to me.
I mean, if they're raising money to help people worse off than them, then they're good people, yeah?
Since they're good people, why do they need to say they're doing it for any other reason than kindness and helping people out?
You should help because you can help, not in order to get more people believing what you believe.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics
How likely do you think it would be to go to a developed nation and get the same conversion numbers using conventional tactics? In Thailand and other struggling places it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
And I do agree that the Bible contains some valuable parables but many, many people take the Bible just as literally as they can swallow it.
I think Jesus' message can be summed up into one supremely important Commandment: Do unto others. I think the Q'uran has something similar too if I recall correctly. If everyone followed just that one the world would be a much, much better place.
But don't you think that a person, that doesn't necessarily have to be too evil or too good (an average "mentally healthy" human being) can become a "good" person because religion inspired him?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm sure that can happen. Just like an average mentally healthy person can be inspired to do a good deed just because of an advert on TV or a letter in a newspaper ... I've seen non-religious adverts on TV and in magazines asking people to donate money for charities to give to good causes ... that sort of thing can spur a person on to do a good deed. Or it could be anything really. It's not like a little religion of any sort is the only thing which will get people off their asses and doing good deeds.
Bear in mind that for however many hundreds of people who do a good deed in the name of any religion, there are also those (a minority for sure, but still there), who are prepared to kill and cause havoc in the name of their religious beliefs. Who's to say that without religion, those people would act on their beliefs and commit evil deeds in the name of their beliefs?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12822855/
And Mop, I see your point, but I think that introducing them to religion will benefit them for the most part. They will most likely become better people, and have something greater to hope for. And the argument of people killing in the name of religion doesn't really apply to civilized society anymore. I know that back in the day, Catholics and other Christians killed lots of people for the wrong reasons, but noawadays, Christians in civilized places are very peaceful and for the most part don't shove anything down anyone's throat. The argument of "religion kills" mostly applies to the fanatic muslims and similar groups who feel its their way or death, and haven't learned to live in harmony with the people who share the world with them.
and here we are on page 2 and it's a believer V non-believer: round 20357647643 hyper alpha EX special wtfbbqsauce edtition!
As I often doubt my beliefs, and question the churches actions I have to say that what it was turned into in the past century is nothing what it was meant to be. And I know i'm not alone. This reaction prompts the fanatics to push harder, when in fact they are simply turning us farther away from our religion. At the very minimum it was only supposed to be a demonstration of good will and a common thought process to meet there. The strict rules are a form of discipline usually based on factual research about how the negative actions we avoid cause more life hardships. It's far more systematic and ritualistic than it needs to be. I understand giving praise if indeed you are catholic, but I would much rather just sit with like minded folks and share experiance and wisdom politly. Reading Psalms and singing really does'nt do much for modern day life anymore, hence why I do think more athiests exsist now. They don't really see any benefit for it. This denotes them as semi-selfish and could explain the general rudeness. Meh, i'm done. Thanks for the rants.
Not to start a war, but Cain is an example of why some Catholics say Athiests are extrmely rude. I actually have no idea why he has'nt been banned from this forum, as he never has anything positive to say.
As far as the 'Free Thinker' thing, just to play devils advocate, says to me you have no direction or goals. Not really speaking on religion, but moral wise. I used to be one, so I kinda see it from both sides.
They could do that without saying it's from Jesus though, right?
I mean, if they're raising money to help people worse off than them, then they're good people, yeah?
Since they're good people, why do they need to say they're doing it for any other reason than kindness and helping people out?
You should help because you can help, not in order to get more people believing what you believe.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics
[/ QUOTE ]
without religion you wouldn't even have a definition of good and evil that has any legitimation at all beside the fact the the one who came up with it likes it. Or to quote Dostojewski: "If god doens't exist, everything is permitted." But then again if you don't believe in a religion, this definition of good and evil is just something someone came up with, so that won't convince you
now you can all stop arguing about religion and all agree at what an insensitive, power-crazy moderator i am.
Someone has to come up with a definition of good and evil, religion did that, and the people who came up with it like it. Without religion, someone else would come up with an almost identical definition for them, and people would have liked it fine.
"Good" and "evil" have nothing whatsoever to do with God.
edit: In before the close!