Religion Thread

[Pillz]

That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.

Religion is something you are in control of changing, race isn't. If discriminating against race was illegal, discriminating against who you voted for on American Idol could be too.

There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.

I will agree with that, but when sharing my beliefs with Christians, I sometimes find them getting very angry at me for not believing in God. I don't know if they hate me, but they almost look down at me for not believing, which I will admit, causes some anger on my part.

I usually don't find myself slandering and hating people who believe in God. I do wish we shared the same beliefs but I know that isn't my decision, and just try to stay off the subject. It's not like I find someone who believes in God and persecute them for it, by beating them to death or whatnot. There is hate on both sides, you can't pin it on one side or the other.

Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake. Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.' I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.

Once again, there are religious people who are the same way. I think we can split these people you speak of, and the religious people I am thinking of, into a single group. Let's call it ignorant people. Even though we are all ignorant on our own levels, some people tend to be seriously ignorant when it comes to religion. They usually know hardly anything about what they believe, and fight for it. Like when a Christian hears you're an Atheist, and just keeps yelling at you angrily how you're going to hell, or when an atheist encounters a Christian or, anything for this matter, Scientoligist, Jew, Muslim, whatever, and calls them an idiot for what they believe.

So like I said, this shit happens on both sides of the argument. Trying to pin it one side of the argument is pointless.

[crypto]

Buddhist do not worship a diety either. If you read in my post, Buddha is not considered a diety. Yet people consider buddhism a religion when all it is is a common practice of beliefs, just like atheism. Atheism believes such things as that government and religion should be seperate.

Mahayana Buddhists consider the Buddha a deity. Pali Buddhists do not. You are treating philosophy as a subset of religion, which is not the case. Just because you have some philosophical conviction or other doesn't mean you're religious.

If you are saying those actions were 'incorrect' as a person looking at them from the present. What's to say that, theoretically, a person from the future wouldn't look back at what you are saying now is incorrect too?

Nothing, but that's an impractical argument because (1) anyone could say it in response to any opposing stance, (2) neither of us is from the future, and (3) scientific and technological advances are occurring exponentially faster than they were at that point in time.

Time has nothing to do if an action is correct or not.

Which was my point.

Popular belief does that.

You are condoning cultural relativism, which is sad. It's also hypocritical of you, since atheism is itself popular belief and you are condemning atheism.

Even then, popular belief doesn't make something right or wrong either.

What was the point of the prior sentence again?

In reality, there cannot be a human made right or wrong, because humans are ignorant and flawed. That's why only God's definition is acceptable. That is one reason why religion is very well needed in the lives of people, including government.

That is a circular argument. It assumes God's existence. We do not assume God's existence, so you are not arguing on the same plane of logic as us. Humans are made neither right nor wrong because existence precedes essence. It's impossible to have a objective philosophical truth set in stone prior to existence, because without existence there would be no literal boundaries in which to cast those truths. We come into existence, and then we define for ourselves right and wrong. Our stances are inherently subjective (and therefore arguably flawed), but there's nothing we can do about it. And that doesn't necessarily invalidate them.

That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.

I hate to smash my head through the wall of your ignorance, but atheism does not by any stretch of its definition indoctrinate discrimination toward believers.

Hell, even I can pull out some great Christians who contributed to humanity.

Of course.

Naming popular people doesn't help your arguement at all. Also, you've named a lot of, to my knowledge, dead people.

Some people who have been dead for centuries, some who have been dead for decades, some who have been dead for less than a decade, and some who are still alive.

I believe you said a comment disreguarding the past.. yet you argue with the past.

No. I am demonstrating that throughout history there has been a huge number of advances made by atheist intelligentsia. You were just throwing out the idea that atheism was once considered a derogatory term and implying that as a result atheists are wrong. That's like condemning blacks because the word Negro has been ascribed derogatorily to them.

Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake.

I question use of "most" in that sentence. Regardless, you are making an irrelevant ad hom attack. I wouldn't be surprised if most religious people generally discriminated against atheists. My point was that both theists and atheists have done plenty of awful things. You should focus primarily on the principles, not on the people, though I admit the crimes of the people should play some role in your judgment since those crimes are sometimes the practical result of the principles.

Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.'

Thank you for conceding the petty and meaningless nature of your attack.

I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.

Most religious arguments are horribly composed, etc.

There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.

Again with "most." I'd like to see some statistical evidence. I could say there is hatefulness in how most theists slander and disrespect atheism.

If you do your research, around 80% of Sweden is atheist. Crusades were Catholics, not all religions. "Don't generalize."

The Crusades were instigated by Catholics and involved heretical Christians, the Greek Orthodox Church, Islam, and various pagan groups. Modern terrorism is primarily an Islamic product. I was pointing out how atheists were involved in neither of those projects.

1) Starving children in Africa was not a trendy issue back when most of those buildings were made. Now if that were a proper arguement which addressed the present church with the present issues instead of the past churche with the present issues. Then I would tell you that there are plenty of mission trips to Africa as well as around the world that feed those kids, build them shelter and churches (for the people,) give them clean water and clothing.

So tear down some superfluous religious structures and use the resources to supply starving children in Africa.

2) Look at all the money the government takes from people just to go to war and hurt people when it could be used to 'feed some starving African villages.' Corruption (which is what I believe you were aiming at with the arguement, disreguard this if I am wrong) is everywhere, not just the Catholic church. When you give an decietful and untrustworthy person power, they will abuse it.

I agree. But just because corruption is everywhere doesn't mean you should cut the Church, or any other institution, slack.

3) To say that spending money on a church is a waste of money (if you implying that) is an insult. It just goes to show the discrimination atheists display. You can build a skyscrapper in New York which costs more than churches, that isn't a problem. When you make a church for worship, then the problem begins?

You're an idiot. Now I am discriminating. I do discriminate against idiots. This is very simple and it's pathetic that you're so violently missing it. Arguing that it's a waste of money is not discrimination. It is opposition to the values that the Church exhibits. Disagreement and discrimination are not remotely synonymous. Do not construe them as such.

4) I honestly don't blame people for wanting a nice church to worship in. Churches are for the public. I believe they should be nice and should be a tribute to God. If you were of a faith, would you not want to worship in a nice looking place instead of a torn down shack? I'd say making nice looking churches isn't selfish at all, the church should be able to treat itself to be more appealing for the people who follow it.

I was referring more to the sheer number of grossly decorated religious buildings in Rome. You certainly don't need that many, and you shouldn't have too much trouble worshiping in a building that is plainer to some degree.

[Wholegrain]

WTF TOO MUCH i didnt read anyones shit
fuck all yall
i got my tacos ............................
/end succesful troll

[crypto]

That was a terrible troll job, you are being not funny, and I doubt you are even high right now as you are trying to insinuate.

[crypto]

Also, I'm having my period today.

[Jorgen]

MMM maybe you should give the blood to a charity event? OH OH OH GIVE IT TO THAILANDS RED SHIRTS =D =D =D =D

[vinnylord]

u just said epic fail to urself john?

[crypto]

NO, FOOL, TO WHOLEGRAIN.

[Jorgen]

crypto remodel your picture make him say HALP! that is more TTT XD

[Pillz]

The lack of religious debate is making me sad.

[vinnylord]

u just said epic fail to urself john?

READ WHAT CRYPTOP SAID :|

what? we all get our period once a month, thats why its calles a period duh

[AlphaWeeaboo]

I don't think people should care about religion much. It's like fighting over if you like something or not. If you believe in whatever, discuss it. If you don't, well then don't. The reason why most religious people do not like atheists is because they are often the ones who go out to try and prove others religions wrong and they often go into topics related to religion and bash it. Now I'm obviously not saying every atheist is like that, I'm just saying atheism seems to be full of negativity and no tolerance of other religions.

[crypto]

The lack of religious debate is making me sad.

We blew him out of the water and into the stratosphere.

And Jorgen that would take way too much effort.

[Pillz]

Well a debate lasts as long as one's stubborn mind allows it to.

[Sniper no Sniping]

Im not sure what you all are fighting about cuz i was too lazy to read 7 pages, but here are my beliefs:

I have no actual religion, I am a libertarian, i believe in god but not heaven, so some call me atheist because they think god needs someplace to "live". I beleive in rebirth, as in when you die you are reborn as a baby. I don't beleive in evolution either, it doesnt seem bery beleivable that one animal is going to change into another that is almost completely different. Some science makes a lot of sense like platetectonics and cells. But some of our science could be wrong, science seems to change a lot, you never know what we could find next.