Print

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

[Chutney]

The Norse are if my memory serves are multiple groups.

Who followed the same religion. If I remember correctly, it's called Germanic Paganism. A lot of barbarian tribes around Europe at the time followed it.

Can I have some sources on Greeks fighting over religion?

Each city-state generally had a deity, and they would often get in squabbles over whose deity is better etc. Most notable were the nigh constant conflicts between Athens (who worshipped Athena) and Sparta (who worshiped Ares). Whenever Ares and Athena got in a conflict (whenever it looked like Sparta wasn't dloing what they believed Athena wanted, or vice versa), a war would break out. Hence

Greece tended to be fighting themselves

[Neonivek]

It should be noted that Greece for the most at this time period was a series of alliances rather then a true nation.

Most notable were the nigh constant conflicts between Athens (who worshipped Athena) and Sparta (who worshiped Ares).

This line of arguement only holds up if Athena and Ares are true dieties. It is no more religious based then saying "For Heaven" makes it about Religion.

The real squabbles is mostly because their societies are entirely opposed to eachother. Well that and they were never on good terms in the first place anyhow. Though this is an oversimplification.

[Grek]

Greeks didn't fight over religion so much as being pissed at eachother due to decades of cattle raiding.

[RAM]

I oppose following assumptions that are not in a position to be evaluated. I believe that religions and pseudo-religions(any time you have people worshipping it is pretty much a religion, even if they don't believe them to be a god, there are plenty of examples of people reaching a point at which they will be praised regardless of their actions, and icons and philosophies can easily reach a point in which they are indistinguishable from a religion in practical effects...) require such assumptions and are therefore dangerous regardless of statistical evidence to the contrary, on account of there being other similar effects which make the same assumptions. So yes, I do oppose religion, I am not a part of a military or similar group, I do not act like a military, I am not equipped like a military, so it seems stupid to call me a militant, but if someone makes a thread asking why people are atheist then I don't feel guilty about posting to say that it is because religions are dangerous and false...

Also, religious groups tend to have evangelical reasons and aims(potentially amongst others) when they perform charitable acts, which may well be the difference that causes them to be so common, also they lack unity because, for some reason, it is difficult to convert people if you are arguing over semantics... For an example of a charitable organisation that does not endorse a religion, try the red cross...

[Neonivek]

Tip RAM: Information kept in ( and ) should be on the side and not required to understand your sentence.

I believe that religions and pseudo-religions require such assumptions and are therefore dangerous regardless of statistical evidence to the contrary, on account of there being other similar effects which make the same assumptions

See how it doesn't seem to make... any sense?

So yes, I do oppose religion

Wait what? how did you come to this conclusion?

I don't feel guilty about posting to say that it is because religions are dangerous and false

Given that you also consider Philosophies to be indistinguishable from Religions at certain points... I guess Athiests arn't really exempt from this.

they lack unity because, for some reason

Ok ok I get it now. Your speaking in such a way that those who know what you mean will understand.

Note: These arn't arguements against you (Except for the philosophy part) just a plead to write in a way that is easier to understand.

[Sergius]

As far as I know, polytheistic civilizations made wars with others and ended up incorporating their deities into their pantheon. Because you gotta catch'em all, don'cha know?

[Neonivek]

As far as I know, polytheistic civilizations made wars with others and ended up incorporating their deities into their pantheon. Because you gotta catch'em all, don'cha know?

I swear there is a game based off that... uhhh... Persona! (or Digital Devil Saga >.>)

[Rilder]

As far as I know, polytheistic civilizations made wars with others and ended up incorporating their deities into their pantheon. Because you gotta catch'em all, don'cha know?

Well yeah, if you meet a different people you are influenced by them, Its not exclusive to polytheism, Christianity is basically a mishmash of beliefs.

Its not religions either, Celts who migrated to Anatolia (Galatians) started to take on Greek Characteristics, The Getai tribes fought with Scythia style horse archers and had Greek Phalanxes.  Its said Seleukia even had a small group of soldiers based on Iberian fighting techniques.

[Neonivek]

Christianity is basically a mishmash of beliefs

Not even an exaggeration when I say "Ohhh yeah"

It would be a nightmare trying to find out where they all come from.

[Idiom]

Who needs training wheels? Grow up!

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME because you don't doesn't mean everyone doesn't. You make me say that again and I'll punch a lolcat.

Advocating living a lie

Oh my, you've been shot and it's obviously fatal. I could give you some morphine to ease the harsh reality that you don't seem to be handling with very well (but I totally could handle it, or at least I claim I can for the sake of an argument, and so I have such expectations of people), but endorsing lies should never be done, ever, in particular [*cough*] with giant things that many people can't cope within the first place, and really you should just grow up.

Dur hur, science solves all! Just prepare yourself with bunkers! It's so simple! I take metaphors literally!

It's a friggin 10,000 km diameter meteor that tends to hit individuals around the age of 70-80 years of age, depending on their living conditions and health. Mortality might find you at the age of 150 the way science is going, but I quote Futurama when I say that it requires a bigger ice cube each time, thus solving it forever. Only temporary solutions will ever be found.

Now you say, but science is the end all! Well, even IF you did TRULY trumph mortality through science, you would create gods (meddling immortals) and religion ("Jump these hoops if you don't want to die" quoth Youth Inc™ rather than God) anyway.

I'm recalling a quote from one of my favorite frenchmen:
"If there were no God it would be necessary to invent him."
Being short of inventing one and beyond proving if there already exists such, all we can do is pat people on the back while they walk the green mile and hell yes science can make the mile itself much more pleasant but the fact remains that the mile is a finite distance.

They're completely incompatible!

As posted before, science and religion are totally compatable and religion saved science during a number of dark ages.

I want to punch a baby every time that someone says "religion does nothing, science does it all!" or vice versa, because there wasn't a single incompatibility until someone claimed there was. If one doesn't do anything for YOU, yes just YOU, then that really doesn't say anything. There's the need again to punch a lolcat.

Religion: die at age 30

I'm not endorsing fire and brimstone religion here. People who do not seek medical treatment for religious reasons are just stupid. I do recall God saying he'll help people, but there was an explicit order not to test that (IE by relying on it.)

Science: We can make people's lives better.

Damn straight.

I would have put the two:
Religion: You'll be fine. Love your neighbor and don't kill anyone and things like that. yada yada yada sunshine and happiness.
Science: Fuck. We'll try to make this better.

What's different in my above descriptions as compared to previous descriptions of the two? They're meant to be applied to two different kinds of people, and while yes they both have the same goals of making things more pleasant, they don't replace each other. The real problem arises when the said people of the two mix. They try to cram something on the other that doesn't fit the other person. And so you get the people here, either whispering or yelling, that Mr. Jingles isn't going to live in any kind of mouse city while you all know damned well the decent thing to do is leave them to believe it anyway.

[RAM]

Who needs training wheels? Grow up!

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME because you don't doesn't mean everyone doesn't. You make me say that again and I'll punch a lolcat.

I am not convinced that anyone needs training wheels, surely the possibility is worth investigating?
Should people who don't need training wheels be forced to constantly take them off because people keep sticking them back on in a misguided attempt to help because the training wheels have "everyone needs these" stamped across them?

Advocating living a lie

Oh my, you've been shot and it's obviously fatal. I could give you some morphine to ease the harsh reality that you don't seem to be handling with very well

Well they will be dead soon so what will the difference be then? if they go to heaven/hell/null then they won't much care how much pain they were in when they died. If they are trapped in the moment of death for all eternity as a ghost then they probably would have liked it if people had spent less time crying sacrilege and more time studying spirituality in an objective manner.
 If you are giving someone palliative care then either you can afford to be generous or you are doing it for other reasons, possibly because you are worried about the morale of the surrounding people. Personally I think that the supply of morphine is running low and when we can't afford it any more then anyone left on it is going to have to kick the addiction the hard way or waste away...

Now you say, but science is the end all! Well, even IF you did TRULY trumph mortality through science, you would create gods (meddling immortals) and religion ("Jump these hoops if you don't want to die" quoth Youth Inc™ rather than God) anyway.

I don't see why, people should be able to handle things in an open and honest way. Personally I like to define a god as being a patron. The christian god is basically the patron of creation, creation basically happens on account of that god. Now by that definition others are unlikely to see you as a god unless you are being dishonest. Are you saying that the elite few who have access to immortality will meddle in the affairs of the rest of humanity and twist the world to a point that it no longer understands how they came to be?

They're completely incompatible!

As posted before, science and religion are totally compatable and religion saved science during a number of dark ages.

You can even name a religion after science...(lets not go there)
Science and religion are perfectly compatible so long as they don't meet. But if religion states something, and science comes up with an answer, then by and large something will break...

I want to punch a baby every time that someone says "religion does nothing, science does it all!" or vice versa, because there wasn't a single incompatibility until someone claimed there was.

And who is claiming incompatibility? The first example that comes to my mind is the idea that the earth is the centre of the universe. Someone says that the earth revolves around the sun, someone notices that this disagrees with current religious doctrine. Who has a problem with this scenario? Certainly not science, science doesn't care what that wacky religion is doing, it just keeps going on finding compelling evidence to support a reliable list of assumptions. Religion on the other hand often takes issue with threats to it, but the real issue is what happens when you bring people into the mix who have ties to both religion and science, at which point you often find scientists in prison and religious folk scrambling to reinterpret things so it becomes clear that god knew it all along...

People who do not seek medical treatment for religious reasons are just stupid.

And yet they honestly believe that they are obeying a religion, and they do it because their faith is more important to them than their desire to make decisions based upon their own abilities. Either there is a good reason to assume that god exists or assuming that god exists is not good reasoning. It is stupid to base your belief in the validity of religion as a whole on whether or not you happen to find one that agrees with you...

I would have put the two:
Religion: You'll be fine. Love your neighbor and don't kill anyone and things like that. yada yada yada sunshine and happiness.
Science: Fuck. We'll try to make this better.

There is nothing inherently religious about "Love your neighbor and don't kill anyone". It may appear in some religions but the fact is that there is some pretty scary stuff and a vast amount of wasted time, effort, and other resources that appears in many of them too. If I had to put it that way:
Religion: It is someone else's problem, we better ask real nice...
Science: We are all doomed and we can't expect anything to save us, but we might get lucky and come up with something we hadn't considered yet...
Atheism: It is our problem...

Tip RAM: Information kept in ( and ) should be on the side and not required to understand your sentence.

I believe that religions and pseudo-religions require such assumptions and are therefore dangerous regardless of statistical evidence to the contrary(on account of there being other similar effects which make the same assumptions)

See how it doesn't seem to make... any sense?

I added some more brackets to help, but it makes perfect sense to me. I am of course biased, but I still don't see any problem...
The assumptions are from the previous sentence. Aside from that it makes sense to me...

[Areyar]

addicts in withdrawal are dangerous!

they will do anything to get a new fix and are terribly good at devising justifications for why you deserved to die for their comfort (5$ worth of religion).

[kcwong]

I'm very late, but I really want to make this OT post...

Hi!  I'm back in this thread yet again to encourage people to be civil.  Warnings are the next step.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's a cape rain frog. I found that on CuteOverload.

A comment there pointed me to this YouTube clip, from Sir David Attenborough's Amazing Rain Frogs - Life in Cold Blood.

It makes me laugh out loud at 1:40. Quoting Attenborough,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The males are so much smaller that they can't enbrace a female. So they produce glue, from glands on their underside, and stick themselves to their partner's back.

But sometimes, that only results in a chain of enthusiastic but indiscriminating males stuck to one another.

And on 2:05, you can see the first male won and was still glued to the female as she dug down into the soil. The other males were left behind watching, no doubt all wearing that face full of disapproval.

[Leafsnail]

I didn't say that they were. I was pointing out that there are massive numbers of Christian organizations who are entirely devoted to helping people and donating. I wasn't saying that Christians are more moral or likely to help, I said that there are numerous Christian organizations that actively donate and help out those that are down (even those that have helped me out, and I'm Jewish ). I have not heard of an atheist organization devoted to helping as much as these organizations are.

There aren't any specific atheist charities.  Why?  Because atheists prefer not to dishonestly evangelise through the medium of charity.  There are plenty of secular charities - most have nothing to do with religion.  My school stopped donating to Christian Aid when they found out that they were attaching our gives to Christian propaganda to try and convert people (the school, while a church school, is very receptive to those with other beliefs).  They've now changed to UNICEF.

making something clear: I have NEVER said that religion == more moral/better person. I KNOW that morals come from the person themselves, and are evolved by their environment.

So what were you trying to say when you said that all charity comes from religion and scientists are too busy failing to cure AIDs to care?

Actually almost every Greek

They were either fighting with each other over petty land disputes, defending themselves from the Persians or conquering an empire.  Non of them even remotely stem from religion, and most Greeks were happy to convert to the Roman religion.  In fact, the Roman religion is based on all sorts of others, primarily Greek.

Norse

,
The Norse relied almost exclusively on pillaging other areas in order to get their stuff.  Sacking churches and raping women was nothing to do with their religion.

and Aztec war was fought because of their religions.

And funnily enough the Aztecs also had an extremely rigid hierarchy system.  Their king was also a god, and the priests had huge amounts of power.

That would make pretty much every form of government a religion. Monarchism, Democracianity, Republicism, Beauracracianity, Fascism(alright Fascism is very nearly a religion, I'll admit), and more! Sorry I wasn't a little more clever with the new names, the only way I could think of to make them sound like the name of a religion are adding "ism" and "ianity" to the end

Not really.  Religious parties often change their roots, and don't have a rigid hierarchy system (leaders can be kicked out, reelected and so on).  Fascism can become a religion if the leader is a sufficient cult of personality is built around their leader.  Monarchy isn't a religion, but isn't it based on the "God-given right" for a monarch to rule over people?

I guess religion is pretty hard to define without really including EVERYTHING... argh

I don't think it's particularly relevant to the topic.  The point is, any system with unaccountable leaders (priests, popes, fascist leaders, spiritual contacters, and even kings) is extremely dangerous.

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME because you don't doesn't mean everyone doesn't. You make me say that again and I'll punch a lolcat.

If someone needs an oppressive and demented god to give them comfort, then quite frankly they need help.  Much greater help than religion can offer.

Oh my, you've been shot and it's obviously fatal. I could give you some morphine to ease the harsh reality that you don't seem to be handling with very well (but I totally could handle it, or at least I claim I can for the sake of an argument, and so I have such expectations of people), but endorsing lies should never be done, ever, in particular [*cough*] with giant things that many people can't cope within the first place, and really you should just grow up.

I think it's deeply dishonest not to tell someone they're dying.  They won't be able to prepare or say goodbye to their family/ friends.  Taking away the pain is different since they understand that you are dulling it.

It's a friggin 10,000 km diameter meteor that tends to hit individuals around the age of 70-80 years of age, depending on their living conditions and health. Mortality might find you at the age of 150 the way science is going, but I quote Futurama when I say that it requires a bigger ice cube each time, thus solving it forever. Only temporary solutions will ever be found.

And without science, this meteor would hit children and babies far more.  And it would be more likely to hit you at age 30 than age 70.  Thanks for the imaginary air bag, but I'd take the real seatbelt any time.

Now you say, but science is the end all! Well, even IF you did TRULY trumph mortality through science, you would create gods (meddling immortals) and religion ("Jump these hoops if you don't want to die" quoth Youth Inc™ rather than God) anyway.

Ok, so now you've claimed that anyone who isn't religious is intrisicly amoral?  Cool, now I can safely write you off as a troll.

As posted before, science and religion are totally compatable and religion saved science during a number of dark ages.

Nice unqualified statement.  How did religion "Save" science?  By burning astronomers (not Galileo - Cecco d'Ascoli and others)?  By repeatedly denying things such as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun because that's not how it says it in the bible?  Making sure that anyone who so much as suggested the idea that species could change over time was thouroughly discredited?  I am seriously interested in how religion saved science from any "Dark age".

there wasn't a single incompatibility until someone claimed there was

Stupid, stupid scientists.  How dare they try to understand the world to show that it is hopelessly incompatible with religious texts!

People who do not seek medical treatment for religious reasons are just stupid.

And religion has preyed on these stupid people, and turned what could have been a stupid but happy life into a stupid and painful death.

Religion: You'll be fine. Love your neighbor and don't kill anyone and things like that. yada yada yada sunshine and happiness.

The thing is, quotes like this tend to be in the minority rather than the majority.  For example. many Americans clearly enjoy the feeling of superiority they have over homosexuals.  Why?  It's almost always because of religious lines.  And this means that gay rights are blocked repeatedly on referendums.

[Chutney]

So what were you trying to say when you said that all charity comes from religion and scientists are too busy failing to cure AIDs to care?

No. I wasn't saying they were too busy FAILING to cure AIDS. I said they were too busy TRYING to cure AIDS. I'm confident one day AIDS will be cured, as well as cancer. I have full faith in science/medicines ability to do this.
That's not an immoral act, though. See, the Greater Good is still good in my eyes. Sometimes you have to ignore the petty problems to solve the big ones. If I was walking down the street and noticed a man choking to  at the end of the block, and a homeless man begging for change right at me, I'd run past the homeless man and save the choking man. AIDS and cancer are bigger goals than feeding the homeless, to be honest.
(Right now I'm anticipating some people calling me a callous bastard, but I needed to make it clear to leafsnail he was misinterpreting what I was saying. Science IS doing a good thing by ignoring the lesser problems in favor of the big ones!)

Also, how did I forget about the Red Cross. Or Unicef. I must've been not thinking at all when I made that post  . And when I said "atheist organizations" I did mean secular. Sorry. I wasn't being very clear. But yea, Red Cross and Unicef are two secular organizations devoted to charity etc.
My point that there are a lot of religious ones still stands, however. I was just dumb for forgetting probably the two biggest ones.