Print

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

[Realmfighter]

I established that first page.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

...which I don't dissagree with you on. My view on religion is that it is akin to a pool of stagnant water. There's nothing good or bad about it on it's own, but soon enough the mosquitoes will come to breed and give everyone malaria. Religion becomes a tool to harm others by those who abuse the power it gives, and that's one of the reasons I'm an atheist, which is what the original question was.

[KaguroDraven]

As people said, 'Realmfighter posted something useful for once!', or something along those lines.
It's true either way, no matter what people believe in they are going to be pricks and twist it so they can strike out against people they dislike. There will also always be people who get themselves in the best position to manipulate people into doing what they want. People suck, they use religion as an excuse to justify hate. But some, mind you only some not even close to a tenth, hate wouldn't exist without religion. Why hate musliems if not for the fact they are heathens? Why hate jews if not for the fact they killed christ? etc. etc.

[Realmfighter]

The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.

It happened because they were different.

Hopy shit, realmfighter said something smart.  We're through the looking glass now.

Now with additional disbelief!

[ECrownofFire]

I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

...which I don't dissagree with you on. My view on religion is that it is akin to a pool of stagnant water. There's nothing good or bad about it on it's own, but soon enough the mosquitoes will come to breed and give everyone malaria. Religion becomes a tool to harm others by those who abuse the power it gives, and that's one of the reasons I'm an atheist, which is what the original question was.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but the way you phrased it seemed very hostile.

As people said, 'Realmfighter posted something useful for once!', or something along those lines.
It's true either way, no matter what people believe in they are going to be pricks and twist it so they can strike out against people they dislike. There will also always be people who get themselves in the best position to manipulate people into doing what they want. People suck, they use religion as an excuse to justify hate. But some, mind you only some not even close to a tenth, hate wouldn't exist without religion. Why hate musliems if not for the fact they are heathens? Why hate jews if not for the fact they killed christ? etc. etc.

It's not the specific religions, it's discrimination in general. To quote from *gasp* Realmfighter:

The crusades did not happen because the Muslims had a different religion.

It happened because they were different.

[KaguroDraven]

Ah, but I'm not talking about the crusades. Much hate for other religions happens when the people live where you live, have the same culture, obay the laws, have the same skin color, etc. The only difference is they have a different religion or are from a different sect of the same religion. The only thing too discriminate against is their faith. It's stupid and idiotic, and rare compaired to 'hate for other reasons but cover up with religion' but it does happen.

[Realmfighter]

So they live where you live, and there religion evolved alongside your religion?\

Or are they foreigner?

[KaguroDraven]

Most Christian sects evolved alongside one another, and in many ways act exactly the same with only a few small differences. Yet you see protistants who will happily beat non-protistants to near death just becouse they aren't protistant, or other similer things.

[malimbar04]

There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.

So you think your belief is better than other beliefs. You even think people should not have other beliefs. How does that make you different from any zealous creationist militant christian? (Except for the well known fact of life that your belief is way better than theirs)

Don't presume to say what I think, because that is not at all what I said. Imposing my belief system is not the same as deconstructing the fallacies and exposing the harm of other beliefs. Telling me that I'm going to go to hell if I'm not a christian, and thus I better become a christian, would be imposing a belief. Telling me that I have a faulty method of doing a math problem would not be.

As for the living status of an unborn child (since you asked), it's actually somewhat simple depending on how you measure life and what you value in life. I value the ability to think, feel pain, believe, and so forth. A blob of cells that can't do this I don't value as a person. This would mean that when the nervous system develops from the notochord, or perhaps more importantly when the brain is distinct and functioning. Brain waves can be recorded at about 6 wks, but it can't feel pain until about 12 wks. To be safe, I'd not take it out after 6.

The legal limit here is 22 to 24 weeks. That makes you a pretty conservative interfering believer, standing in the way of people who want a choice. If you say you don't interfere, then you should be okay with killing babies 20 years after birth as well, right? Or not? If so, where's the limit then?

I'm feeling militant

Thanks? I'm a little fuzzy on the times that specific things happen and their relevance, so I used the conservative estimates. With better data I could change my mind. I have a feeling that the people who set that limit know more than I do. Also, The legal limit you present is for abortions, correct? Pro-life (anti-abortion with a prettier name) activists would protest that.  Stem cell research (how this started, remember?) uses them at far less than that (I read somewhere around 2 wks). Legally, by the way, it is not considered a baby with rights until it is born, so both of those are conservative in a way.

Killing people 20 years after birth is actually a good point to bring up. Unfortunately that line travels us down a long path of when killing others is ethical. We could go into the death penalty, euthanasia, the brain-damaged, suicide, and all sorts of things. However, I think it's fair to say that ethically we generally consider killing the young to be (a lot) worse.

[Realmfighter]

Don't presume to say what I think, because that is not at all what I said. Imposing my belief system is not the same as deconstructing the fallacies and exposing the harm of other beliefs. Telling me that I'm going to go to hell if I'm not a christian, and thus I better become a christian, would be imposing a belief. Telling me that I have a faulty method of doing a math problem would not be.

But Cristians truly do believe that you will suffer eternal suffering if you don't repent, making them trying to convert you okay by both your definitions.

[malimbar04]

Is the impact religion has had on the world a contributing factor? What are you're views on the effect of religion on the world.

Yes, that is a factor. The majority of religions have caused great strife to the world. They supress freethought, which brings progress, because it conflicts with their rules, and impose arbitrary restrictions based off of their dogma. Even today, what remains of the conflict between religions holds the world back from progress. I can think of nothing good religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Dammit, I have to link this AGAIN.

People are going to be bastards no matter what they believe in. We established this pages ago. Dogma and rules are established by the people leading that religion, not the gods they believe in, no matter what they say. The rules they establish are their interpretation of their gods and the world. I feel nothing wrong with stating this, even being in religion myself (granted, it's not exactly organized, but it's definitely got some established rules). If slavery (for example) wasn't started in the name of religion (I'm not even sure if it was, but the example doesn't matter), do you seriously think that they wouldn't find a different reason for it? Let's turn this back around. I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

It's a very good point even if it's repeated. Religion isn't the prime motivation for most of the bad things in the world. Religion acts as a unifier and justifier for those things though. The Crusades, from what I hear, would have otherwise been the same inter-cultural wars that plagued europe before them. Christians were killing each other so often that the pope said "just go take back the holy land, fight them instead of fighting among yoruselves!". If religion wasn't there to direct them all, then they would have mostly killed themselves.

A more modern example can be with Hitler. Hitler did not rise to power because of theology, but he definitely used it as propaganda to motivate his troops. He definitely used it to show the superiority of the Aryan "race" and the inferiority of others.

[malimbar04]

Don't presume to say what I think, because that is not at all what I said. Imposing my belief system is not the same as deconstructing the fallacies and exposing the harm of other beliefs. Telling me that I'm going to go to hell if I'm not a christian, and thus I better become a christian, would be imposing a belief. Telling me that I have a faulty method of doing a math problem would not be.

But Cristians truly do believe that you will suffer eternal suffering if you don't repent, making them trying to convert you okay by both your definitions.

How is that ok by my definitions?
Whether they think it's moral or not is irrelevant to what I said anyways, since I was talking about universal values of correcting someone about facts rather than on belief. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Also, check out the context of what I was saying (edited for coherency, total content saved and referenced)
Check it out:

Ah, but I think everyone "believes" something. Even nihilists believe in nothing. So "belief" getting in the way of science happens regardless of faith in a God. Bias, for instance, has been a lot more destructive (as it's a lot more subtle and harder to detect) in science, and it's also belief-based.

There is a difference between a temporary belief until better evidence comes in, and a firm belief regardless of evidence. Not everyone has a firm belief regardless of evidence, and I don't think anyone should have such a belief. Any such belief may interfere with science (unless it is sufficiently meaningless), thus making the two almost always at odds on one thing or another.

So you think your belief is better than other beliefs. You even think people should not have other beliefs. How does that make you different from any zealous creationist militant christian? (Except for the well known fact of life that your belief is way better than theirs)

This is a case of either misunderstanding, or purposefully misrepresenting. Just to defend myself again, My beliefs are not inherently and immutably better than yours. If you have an idea of which I have not considered, let me consider it. This is the exact opposite of faith by the way (by definition). That is not a statement of belief, but a statement of definition.

[CoughDrop]

"[War] comes from something both sub and superhuman, something we share with gorillas, apes, fish and ants--a brutality that speaks to us through the animals in our brain. If man has contributed anything of his own to the equation, it is this: he has learned to dream of peace. But to achieve that dream, he will have to overcome what nature has built into him." -Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle

Evolution shows that the human brain is based around much more primitive ways of thinking, and that logic and reasoning have been slapped on top of this construct. I think it's quite possible for humans to slowly degenerate the primitive ways of thinking, albeit it would take a while.

Also, what's with everyone feeling that their beliefs are threatened in this thread?

[Glowcat]

I can think of nothing bad religion has ever brought to the world that couldn't have been done without it.

Mental torture caused to children by teaching them there is a boogyman inside their mind and if do anything bad they will go to a place where they will burn and suffer forever.

That people can be rewarded eternally by dying for a cause.

Not to mention the fanaticism that comes with believing your cause is inspired by the personification of everything that is good, important, and holy.

Ideas have consequences. While many of religion's sins overlap with other human drives, the supernatural has a sphere of destructive behavior all to its own. The greatest of its sins imo is the idea of Faith which allows otherwise good religious people to continue causing great harm because they have been inspired not to think, that determining Objective Reality can't answer the important questions, and that they should simply trust in their Religion because it transcends their ability to understand.

[Leafsnail]

The legal limit here is 22 to 24 weeks. That makes you a pretty conservative interfering believer, standing in the way of people who want a choice. If you say you don't interfere, then you should be okay with killing babies 20 years after birth as well, right? Or not? If so, where's the limit then?

But if you start making crap slippery slope arguments, soon all of your arguments will be equally fallacious!