Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist is dead tome]

Urist who?

[Siquo]

*knock knock*

[Leafsnail]

It's gonna be hard to finish that one without coming up with a standard pronunciation for it.

[Eugenitor]

*knock knock*
Who's there?
Urist!
Urist who?
Urist upid as you look!

Anyway, the Adam and Eve business is a metaphor for lost innocence, which Abrahamic religions consider a bad thing for some reason.

[Phmcw]

Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.
"Hey you two, for some reason, you aren't granted access to knowledge.
No not even if things are good or evil.
So you don't know that going against my will is evil. (Why is it so remain a mystery to these days, because as far as I know, gathering knowledge is good.)
Ho noes, you've learned to distinguish good from evil!
Now I must chase you away!"

Hey by this logic, teabaggers are saint : Not the tiniest trace from knowledge or of the ability to distinguishing good and evil in theirs minds.

[Andir]

i disagree, i think malimbar is trying very hard to be respectful without being outright dishonest.

Claiming someone is dancing around the issue, and then attacking his beliefs, without taking the effort to actually read back what those beliefs are, is disrespectful in my book.

The issue was danced around though...

What I am refusing to discuss is my reasons for believing it, which are far too personal and very irrelevant.

The question was asked, why... and the reason was give: "It's personal."

To me, that's like saying: "Do this because I said so."

There's a/an (ir)rationality there that hasn't been breached.  For good or bad, that's the root of the discussion and it's been placed behind a brick wall.

[fqllve]

Except he's not asking you to do anything. Those are his reasons for believing what he believes.

I'm pretty sure that every religious belief you hold, when looked at honestly and openly, will be vacuous and silly.

And stuff like that implies your interest in his beliefs isn't in good faith. It sounds like you just want to know his personal reasons for believing so you can tear them apart. Maybe he just thinks it makes the universe a more interesting place, does he not have a right to come in here, discuss religion, without having people attack that? It's not like Crown has run around in the thread tearing at other people's beliefs.

I was unaware that the purpose of this thread was "Make everyone an atheist." If I had been I, an atheist, wouldn't have participated at all.

[Andir]

Except he's not asking you to do anything. Those are his reasons for believing what he believes.

Not the intend of what I said... but the question was raised to further the discussion and the wall was erected.  It's a typical defense procedure.  "Stop any and all discussion at this line."  This is why religion stands today.  You can try to query people to find out why they follow a religion and try to get to the bottom and/or educate them and the defense wall eventually gets presented.  At some point in a person's life they decide that no further learning is required and nothing will sway them.  Answering "Why?" helps determine that point.

Also, it has nothing to do with attacking.

[fqllve]

What if I, as an artist, felt that the universe itself was a work of art? What if seeing it as created spoke to me personally as a creator? Wouldn't that instead further my understanding of the world? Religion isn't just about ignorance, it isn't anti-intellectual, it doesn't prohibit learning. If we try to use religion as a reason as a way to explain otherwise answerable questions then yes, but for some people religion has driven their desire to learn. Some people would like to understand the mind of their god, and the way to do this is through study of his creation.

[Siquo]

Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.

Ignorance is bliss. That's why. I've always been jealous of stupid people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.

Ignorance is bliss. That's why. I've always been jealous of stupid people.

I haven't. Ignorance may be bliss sometimes, but having the truth crash down upon you unexpectedly one day makes it not worth it. I personally have always enjoyed knowing things, having even the slightest greater understanding of the world around me every day, rather than being left to guess in the dark.

[Andir]

Wouldn't that instead further my understanding of the world?

No, how is studying the text of the Lord of the Rings Series (for example) going to enhance your knowledge of the universe we live in?  If you take the examples from that book, you'd be doing no different than following a religion.  There may be an interesting story to tell and it may give good life advice, but it's not real.  Relying on the stories in the books to relate to real life just doesn't make sense.  You can't sequester yourself into a world you make up on your own (taking cues/being taught about a world someone else made up) and expect it to end up well.  If you want to truly understand something, you have to remove all traces of belief in your current system and analyze something for what it is, and not what you think it should be.  That means accepting that there isn't some divine being controlling things and the world operates on specific sets of rules.  Believing something created those rules really has no bearing on how they work and introducing human like creationism into the mix gives you the idea that this creator may bend those rules to fit their own agenda.  Now you see small variances in your testing and you assume it's "The Great Being" making finite adjustments instead of finding out why those are happening.

Religion isn't just about ignorance, it isn't anti-intellectual, it doesn't prohibit learning. If we try to use religion as a reason as a way to explain otherwise answerable questions then yes, but for some people religion has driven their desire to learn. Some people would like to understand the mind of their god, and the way to do this is through study of his creation.

Some people do the opposite.  They use religion for a crutch and ignore any evidence to the contrary.  They erect that wall and say, "It works this way because of ____ god" and ignore all contrary evidence, refuse to look beyond the defensive wall and shut down all conversation related to it.  They are setting themselves up for disappointment or using such knowledge to suppress or control others.  (Laws [Blue or "Moral Blue"], Wars [no explain needed], Rituals [Burkas], Indoctrination [In God We Trust, Baptism], etc.)

[fqllve]

No, how is studying the text of the Lord of the Rings Series (for example) going to enhance your knowledge of the universe we live in?  If you take the examples from that book, you'd be doing no different than following a religion.  There may be an interesting story to tell and it may give good life advice, but it's not real.  Relying on the stories in the books to relate to real life just doesn't make sense.  You can't sequester yourself into a world you make up on your own (taking cues/being taught about a world someone else made up) and expect it to end up well.  If you want to truly understand something, you have to remove all traces of belief in your current system and analyze something for what it is, and not what you think it should be.  That means accepting that there isn't some divine being controlling things and the world operates on specific sets of rules.  Believing something created those rules really has no bearing on how they work and introducing human like creationism into the mix gives you the idea that this creator may bend those rules to fit their own agenda.  Now you see small variances in your testing and you assume it's "The Great Being" making finite adjustments instead of finding out why those are happening.

So what, metaphor can never add to your understanding? Learning to relate things you don't understand to things you do through metaphor is worthless?

Besides, not all religion is based on books, not all "creationism" is young earth biblical creationism. Some people use god to answer questions that can't be answered through empirical observation or rational thought.

Some people do the opposite.  They use religion for a crutch and ignore any evidence to the contrary.  They erect that wall and say, "It works this way because of ____ god" and ignore all contrary evidence, refuse to look beyond the defensive wall and shut down all conversation related to it.  They are setting themselves up for disappointment or using such knowledge to suppress or control others.  (Laws [Blue or "Moral Blue"], Wars [no explain needed], Rituals [Burkas], Indoctrination [In God We Trust, Baptism], etc.)

Of course some people do the opposite, but just because those people do doesn't mean everyone does or that religion should be judged solely on them.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, actually, this isn't the place to tell people to be atheist. I do understand that you're trying to help, just as a proselytizer believes he's trying to help people by converting them. But if he wants to say, "This is what I believe, but I don't want to discuss the reasons why," that's fine in general. It's an acceptable defense for his own beliefs, because not only does the burden of proof lie with others to change his mind, it's his decision as to whether or not he wants to deal with it at all. When all we're talking about are his own choices, that's perfectly reasonable. That changes if we're talking about convincing others of his beliefs, but at the moment we're not.

That said, this is still a discussion thread; if you don't want to discuss your reasons for believing what you do here, CoF, then it's probably best not to bring those beliefs up here in the first place. We can't have much of a discussion about them if there's no rationale presented. It's fine to present your perspective on other discussions that come up, but there is a good chance you may not be considered particularly convincing if that perspective relies on your personal beliefs.

In short, I'd like to call a moratorium on discussing CoF's reasons for believing what he does, both on his part and on everyone else's, because it's not going to go anywhere productive and is probably just going to make most people involved look bad.

[Max White]

Yes, I never understood how can poeple can believe in a book that says in the first chapter that knowledge is bad and ignorance good.
"Hey you two, for some reason, you aren't granted access to knowledge.
No not even if things are good or evil.
So you don't know that going against my will is evil. (Why is it so remain a mystery to these days, because as far as I know, gathering knowledge is good.)
Ho noes, you've learned to distinguish good from evil!
Now I must chase you away!"

Hey by this logic, teabaggers are saint : Not the tiniest trace from knowledge or of the ability to distinguishing good and evil in theirs minds.

Well you could go by the view point that rather then all knowledge is evil, knowledge of sin is evil.
In the begining Adam and Eve did not understand sin, or what 'evil' was, thus they were happy to strut around in the nude to the pleasure of many bad fan fiction writers. However, when they are the forbidden fruit they broke the rules, and disobayed super man. There wasn't realy anything special about the fruit, it was the action of doing what they were told not to that was important. From then on, because they had sinned, they knew what it meant, as shown by the fact that they put some pants on, much to the pleasure of everybody else.

Yeah, actually, this isn't the place to tell people to be atheist. I do understand that you're trying to help, just as a proselytizer believes he's trying to help people by converting them. But if he wants to say, "This is what I believe, but I don't want to discuss the reasons why," that's fine in general. It's an acceptable defense for his own beliefs, because not only does the burden of proof lie with others to change his mind, it's his decision as to whether or not he wants to deal with it at all. When all we're talking about are his own choices, that's perfectly reasonable. That changes if we're talking about convincing others of his beliefs, but at the moment we're not.

That said, this is still a discussion thread; if you don't want to discuss your reasons for believing what you do here, CoF, then it's probably best not to bring those beliefs up here in the first place. We can't have much of a discussion about them if there's no rationale presented. It's fine to present your perspective on other discussions that come up, but there is a good chance you may not be considered particularly convincing if that perspective relies on your personal beliefs.

In short, I'd like to call a moratorium on discussing CoF's reasons for believing what he does, both on his part and on everyone else's, because it's not going to go anywhere productive and is probably just going to make most people involved look bad.

Do you put your text in red because your so pretentiouse that your block of text is more important that anybody elses, and people will stop and take ntice of it? I bet your one of those people who says a joke, and when nobody laughes you repeat it louder.