Where's your science now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... urkey.html

I am not taking a side... but let the discussions... BEGIN!

"omfg look we found Noah's fucking Ark! God is REAL!"

"Cool, can we see?"

"Fuck you, Scientists!"

"We just wanna look at i..."

"NO!"

I've been hearing this same story since I was 10 or so. I guess someone found some pics to go along with it this time.

Eh, u cant be fucking serious, who would beleive that it is some rediculous arch, also the arch is suposed to be fucking massive? like, massive massive.

Fail.
Interesting, but religion still failz.
Most definitly still not as interesting as the pyramids.

and if someone said they dug out the pyramids last week?
i'm not saying this is Noah's Ark but this is a silly argument. and what does religion got to do with anything? of course religion fails doh but that's not the point. this may be a significant relic in human history that if anything, reaffirms the occurrence of a great flood some 3000 years ago. nothing more.

what puzzles me is isn't wood suppose to fossilize after 3000 yeas?

This is why i said its interesting, however they allready know there wasnt a huge ass flood 3000 years ago because of the civilisations that were around at the time. As it even says somewhere in that link.
Its interesting yes, but the whole arch thing is just retarded.

gah,

IMO the bible etc.. is all about philosophy.

Just look back not even 100 years back, most stories were fables.
(The Tortoise and the Hare etc..)

You have to read between the lines, and the message the bible or any "holy writings" for that matter, is always more or less pointing in the same direction.

There are truths worth spreading in such fables and their writers are geniuses. A story will sound like a fabulous fairytale for someone that simply reads it quickly, while it is also keeper of deep messages and lessons in life.

There was not really an arranged race between a turtle and a hare.
However the story teaches you to get shit done and be serious about everything you do even if you deem the task easy.

There was not really a giant fucking boat holding 2 of every animals on earth.
However,when facing dark times, one must make his priority to save the knowledge of man and the life on earth.

Read between the lines in anything you read and hear, question what is given to you, only then will you evolve and move on.

Or stick to what been writen and folow it without questioning a thing and live in the comfort of the dream you chose to live in.

I don't make any difference between the matrix and the bible when it come to interpreting what is said in the given media.

Anyway, this is how I see it. What they should really focus on, is finding out how this wrecked ships or pyramids can last so long. We're traveling in space but can't build anything that lasts more than 30 fucking years, miserable.

a glitch in the matrix?!?!

As a real-life Christian who majoried in philosophy and is now in law school, I think I'm about as even-minded as most people. You don't have to read the Bible as completely literal in order to be a good Christian. When you compare the Torah (the first and earliest books of the Bible) with many other religious texts of the same period, they all have in common a flood myth and a story of creation. But the flood myth is just that - a myth. Everyone who thinks about the Noah's Ark story has determined that a boat large enough to support 40,000 - 1.5 million species just couldn't exist, especially not in that era. Believers are quick to point out that maybe God did some funky shrink-ray stuff. Maybe he did - God is God after all. But apart from some miraculous God-work, we're just left with a fable about a guy and a boat.

Christians have to get past the science vs. religion war, IMO, in order to be taken seriously in educated socieites. And that clearly involves taking real-life scientists out on your fundamentalist expeditions.

MondaySunshine wrote:Torah (the first and earliest books of the Bible)

small correction mate, Bible is the Hebrew Tanach which is actually a compilation of 3 volumes: Tora (Teachings), Neveem (Prophets) and Ktoovim (Writings).
What you are referring to as "bible" is actually the "New Testament" which is ascribed to Jesus' life and teachings. an old and common mistake joined the "New Testament" into the description of the word : Bible and raped the true name by calling it now "The Old Testament".

Woa, it must be true because I read it in the daily mail.

Link

[EYE] Valar wrote: this may be a significant relic in human history that if anything, reaffirms the occurrence of a great flood some 3000 years ago. nothing more.

Or, you know, maybe someone just had a boat

[EYE] Valar wrote:

MondaySunshine wrote:Torah (the first and earliest books of the Bible)

small correction mate, Bible is the Hebrew Tanach which is actually a compilation of 3 volumes: Tora (Teachings), Neveem (Prophets) and Ktoovim (Writings).
What you are referring to as "bible" is actually the "New Testament" which is ascribed to Jesus' life and teachings. an old and common mistake joined the "New Testament" into the description of the word : Bible and raped the true name by calling it now "The Old Testament".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

I was talking about the Torah, the Mosaic books of the Christian Bible.

I wonder, do folks think the story/parable/idea/record of Noah and tons of other things in the Bible are just fiction?
I wonder if folks think Jesus is just a story? Or Moses, Sol, The ancient tribes...

Where did the story of Noak and the Ark come from, thin air?!

No, it cannot be taken literally, but the Bible is a historical book as well as a philosophical and moral one.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I wonder, do folks think the story/parable/idea/record of Noah and tons of other things in the Bible are just fiction?
I wonder if folks think Jesus is just a story? Or Moses, Sol, The ancient tribes...

Where did the story of Noak and the Ark come from, thin air?!

No, it cannot be taken literally, but the Bible is a historical book as well as a philosophical and moral one.

Myths crossed cultures through oral storytelling and were incorporated into other not-yet formed religions. Just because many cultures share similar stories does not mean that those stories are true.

Gawd, hardcore sigh on that one.

Son, i am dissapoint.

"According to Genesis, the first book in the Old Testament, Noah was told to build the ark by God, who wanted to flood the world to punish sinners. "

if only they had time to go to confession before the flood.

i love how it reads that Noah's wife drowned in the flood. hehe, atleast he got the animals tho.

MondaySunshine wrote:

[EYE] Valar wrote:

MondaySunshine wrote:Torah (the first and earliest books of the Bible)

small correction mate, Bible is the Hebrew Tanach which is actually a compilation of 3 volumes: Tora (Teachings), Neveem (Prophets) and Ktoovim (Writings).
What you are referring to as "bible" is actually the "New Testament" which is ascribed to Jesus' life and teachings. an old and common mistake joined the "New Testament" into the description of the word : Bible and raped the true name by calling it now "The Old Testament".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

I was talking about the Torah, the Mosaic books of the Christian Bible.

i say again. Tora is a single book. Bible is a collection of books. read from the wiki

"...The Torah is the first of three parts of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible).."

Tora is NOT the Mosaic books of the Christian Bible. you got it wrong. The Tora has nothing to do with Christianity. absolutely nothing at all.

heh, not only Jewish politics raped history for their own ends but also Romans and then later Christians came in and further raped the facts.

and to the point: Religion is buttnuggets. always was. always will be. there were people in human history who here enlightened, or..very inspired if you will. NONE of them told ANYBODY follow me - i'm the shit. Hell is in your Mind and Heart...right next to Heaven and this is the same old things ALL the prophets kept saying over and over again. Some religions were better at hiding this essence. Hardcore Jews and Roman Catholics take first place. followed by Muslims.

Point of this thread is: are there proofs of ancient historic events found on whatnot scrolls, books, teachings or not? i say yes. maybe this new finding isn't valid, maybe it is, i don't know. we'll have to wait for Turkey to announce this is an archeological site to find out more.

"Myths crossed cultures through oral storytelling and were incorporated into other not-yet formed religions. Just because many cultures share similar stories does not mean that those stories are true."

I did not say they were true.
I said they were not fiction.

The difference is, these universal symbols and icons and myths have SOME basis in fact.
I said they cannot be taken literally.

A Great flood almost certainly happened.
Premonition to build an ark to survive a huge flood is not impossible to imagine.
Cities like Sodom most definitely existed, as did the bacchanalia of Pagan Rome.
The parables of the Bible, Cain and Abel, Job...are based in human experince and fact.

Notice i said BASED.
Pervasive universal symbolism across cultures assuredly is based in fact.
It would not be universal if it were not.

[EYE] Valar wrote:Tora is NOT the Mosaic books of the Christian Bible. you got it wrong. The Tora has nothing to do with Christianity. absolutely nothing at all.

Except that Christians read the Torah every day and belive it and put it in the Bible?

God: Noah, you must grab 2 of every creature on the planet and put them on a boat.

Noah: Why?

God: Cause I'm pissed at the rest of civilization and I want to rid the planet of these people. SOOO, I'm gonna flood the planet and it is your job to save 2 of every species.

Noah: Yo dude, why don't you just make them vanish? You are God and all. Plus what about all the other innocent species that have done nothing wrong. Kinda cruel don't you think?

God: Meh. Just do it.

Noah: God damn it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

Religion: The worlds #1 mental illness.

TiGGy wrote:God: Noah, you must grab 2 of every creature on the planet and put them on a boat.

Noah: Why?

God: Cause I'm pissed at the rest of civilization and I want to rid the planet of these people. SOOO, I'm gonna flood the planet and it is your job to save 2 of every species.

Noah: Yo dude, why don't you just make them vanish? You are God and all. Plus what about all the other innocent species that have done nothing wrong. Kinda cruel don't you think?

God: Meh. Just do it.

Noah: God damn it.

!

TiGGy wrote:God: Noah, you must grab 2 of every creature on the planet and put them on a boat.

Noah: Why?

God: Cause I'm pissed at the rest of civilization and I want to rid the planet of these people. SOOO, I'm gonna flood the planet and it is your job to save 2 of every species.

Noah: Yo dude, why don't you just make them vanish? You are God and all. Plus what about all the other innocent species that have done nothing wrong. Kinda cruel don't you think?

God: Meh. Just do it.

Noah: God damn it, alright. but only if i dont have to take the bitch of a wife i have with me.

God: deal.

fixed

I don't get why so many people put all they beliefs and moral values in a bunch of stories or theories. Just because most of the bible isn't true doesn't mean the opposite of it is true. It seems every atheist is a douche about it to people that believe in religion when they just believe in a bunch of theories too. Even if there was a there was a religion that was right chances are its not gonna be christianity though

It amazes me that there are folks that think religion has been a blight on mankind, as if cultural and social evolution is the pride of NON-BELIEF.

And a Mental Illness at that.
Folks say that no belief, no purpose, no creator, meaning is somehow a VALUE, that having nothing to offer or no belief system is somehow superior.
And what have they contributed in the wake of man's march out of barbarism? Hardly anything at all.
Ko is such a person. He has decidedly bleak and negative view of mankind in general, and nothing to offer.
There are no Christian missionaries around the world caring for the poor and feeding the hungry, as the Bible commands.
Religious charity and social brotherhood doesn't exist in religion. Religion is never a calming affirmative value whatsoever.
Jesus is a disease instead of one of the world's greatest moral philosophers. He probably never existed at all.

Having no belief is not good enough for these folks. They have all the answers, a handful of nothing.
It's not good for them, that their lives have no meaning whatsoever, just happenstance and nothing. They have to insult people, as if that is some kind of argument.
It's prideful and arrogant bullshit in my book.

Maybe they will see the value someday, though i don't really care.
I just present the argument.

The Argumentalizer wrote:And what have they contributed in the wake of man's march out of barbarism? Hardly anything at all.
Ko is such a person. He has decidedly bleak and negative view of mankind in general, and nothing to offer.

lol ko is a realist?
That doesnt make any sense, ur saying wat exactly?
ppl who dont beleive in anything dont ever contribute anything to...wat? anything? Im sure they are the same as anyone else, some do some dont, but lets not kid ourselves very few ppl actually contribute anything to.....any cause that matters.

The Argumentalizer..[/q wrote:There are no Christian missionaries around the world caring for the poor and feeding the hungry, as the Bible commands.

Charity is a small deal in the grand scheme of things, in the end science will provide a much more efficient solution.

BuckyKatt wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0KHt8xrQkk

Loveeee cosby

Since many of the people here like to bash religion constantly and say it's just a waste of time, I'm curious. What DO you believe in? Do you value ANYTHING at all that isn't material or what's just in front of your eyes?

Even though the events in the Bible are very unlikely and all that, you can't deny one thing: it's very well written. I don't go around believing all that shit in it exists, but I do think that there are extremely good lessons to learn from the Bible (and a good preacher/priest) whether you believe it or not. The stories and philosophy within the Bible all have good things to learn from them, just like the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, etc. did.

Perniocious
"lol ko is a realist?
That doesnt make any sense, ur saying wat exactly?
ppl who dont beleive in anything dont ever contribute anything to...wat? anything? Im sure they are the same as anyone else, some do some dont, but lets not kid ourselves very few ppl actually contribute anything to.....any cause that matters."
---------------------
I never said anything about Ko being a realist.
If you followed anything in the post, you would understand i am saying he is the opposite of realist.

The fact is, Human History is inextricably tied to religion.
It is an inescapable fact.
Mankind did not leave Africa and spread throughout the World, climb to the top of the food chain, build civilizations and societies, invent scientific method, end up with Constitutions...without Religion.

What IS universal AND pervasive and SUCCESSFUL in human development is RELIGION.
Atheism is the champion and inventor of nothing. Not even Science comes from Atheism.

What arrives as the consequence of Atheism is NOTHING. Nothing at all.
The lack of belief in a creator or god or religion doesn't make one a scientist.
It lack of belief invents nothing.
Nothing affirmative or valuable is the result of a lack of belief in God.
Atheism makes no positive statements, answers no questions, provides no comfort.

The general SCHTICK from "Atheists" like religion is a mental disorder, is ignorant, moronic, false, and irritating.
It is not even logical.
=============================================================================
Pernicious (RooBrain) "Charity is a small deal in the grand scheme of things, in the end science will provide a much more efficient solution."

Possibly one the dumbest and shallowest, least meaningful statements i have ever seen.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I never said anything about Ko being a realist.

I was making a joke. ie "He has decidedly bleak and negative view of mankind in general" makes him a realist get it?

The Argumentalizer wrote:Mankind did not leave Africa and spread throughout the World, climb to the top of the food chain, build civilizations and societies, invent scientific method, end up with Constitutions...without Religion.

Gawd, u remember nothing do u, we had this argument, its pretty fucking obvious that societies and language come BEFORE religion. And have other reasons to progress besides religion. Mankind is inextricably tied to sodomy as well, doesnt mean it helps. Though they do say a happy worker is a good worker.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Atheism is the champion and inventor of nothing. Not even Science comes from Atheism.

I guess science came from the idea of asking and answering questions, which is wat athiesm pretty much is, u could say in part that athiesm evolved out of religion.... Though who gives a fuck but yea ok. Athiesm is the inventor of nothing, thats a generalised statement about a complicated circumstance, and as such makes no sense wat so ever.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Nothing affirmative or valuable is the result of a lack of belief in God.
Atheism makes no positive statements, answers no questions, provides no comfort.

Athiesm/science provides alot of answers, just doesnt pretend to have ALL the answers. As for comfort, believing in something for that reason is just plain irresponsible.
Like a suicide bomber beleiving he is gunna get 23 virgins if he blows up 20 random mofos on some bus. Not all religious ppl hurt others ofcourse but there is allways some consquence, even if only on a personal development level.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Perniocious
"lol ko is a realist?
That doesnt make any sense, ur saying wat exactly?
ppl who dont beleive in anything dont ever contribute anything to...wat? anything? Im sure they are the same as anyone else, some do some dont, but lets not kid ourselves very few ppl actually contribute anything to.....any cause that matters."
---------------------
I never said anything about Ko being a realist.
If you followed anything in the post, you would understand i am saying he is the opposite of realist.

The fact is, Human History is inextricably tied to religion.
It is an inescapable fact.
Mankind did not leave Africa and spread throughout the World, climb to the top of the food chain, build civilizations and societies, invent scientific method, end up with Constitutions...without Religion.

What IS universal AND pervasive and SUCCESSFUL in human development is RELIGION.
Atheism is the champion and inventor of nothing. Not even Science comes from Atheism.

What arrives as the consequence of Atheism is NOTHING. Nothing at all.
The lack of belief in a creator or god or religion doesn't make one a scientist.
It lack of belief invents nothing.
Nothing affirmative or valuable is the result of a lack of belief in God.
Atheism makes no positive statements, answers no questions, provides no comfort.

The general SCHTICK from "Atheists" like religion is a mental disorder, is ignorant, moronic, false, and irritating.
It is not even logical.
=============================================================================
Pernicious (RooBrain) "Charity is a small deal in the grand scheme of things, in the end science will provide a much more efficient solution."

Possibly one the dumbest and shallowest, least meaningful statements i have ever seen.

but you must see that the rise of the secular state. the enlightenment and Darwinism go hand in hand rebuking all that has gone before, therefore an inextricable link. A state without religion based on the premise that metaphysical presence is impossible is merely that

The Argumentalizer wrote:Pernicious (RooBrain) "Charity is a small deal in the grand scheme of things, in the end science will provide a much more efficient solution."
Possibly one the dumbest and shallowest, least meaningful statements i have ever seen.

Charity IS a small deal. With all the charity going on more ppl are dying in one day then are being helped in a year, that wasnt an accurate calculation ofcourse but my point still stands.
Meaningless is it?
Maybe u should have a long hard think about how much technology makes life easier, and then imagine technological developments being used in certain countries where thousands are starving everyday. This, is the future, well, hopefully, its the best fucking hope.

The Argumentalizer wrote:The general SCHTICK from "Atheists" like religion is a mental disorder, is ignorant, moronic, false, and irritating.
It is not even logical.

Well i dont generally say such things unless i think the person in question is being a douche, in your case i can understand it.
But honestly wen i think about ppl that i have met who have been religious, true religious, they have allways been that way because of certain events in their lives that disturb them, they end up seeking comfort in religion and it pretty much ends up being like a mental disorder. They beleive one unlikely thing, only that thing, whoere else doesnt goes to hell and thats fine by them.
When u have seen a couple of these intense crazies u kinda do get into that mentality.

Pernicious wrote:

The Argumentalizer wrote:Pernicious (RooBrain) "Charity is a small deal in the grand scheme of things, in the end science will provide a much more efficient solution."
Possibly one the dumbest and shallowest, least meaningful statements i have ever seen.

Charity IS a small deal. With all the charity going on more ppl are dying in one day then are being helped in a year, that wasnt an accurate calculation ofcourse but my point still stands.
Meaningless is it?
Maybe u should have a long hard think about how much technology makes life easier, and then imagine technological developments being used in certain countries where thousands are starving everyday. This, is the future, well, hopefully, its the best fucking hope.

The Argumentalizer wrote:The general SCHTICK from "Atheists" like religion is a mental disorder, is ignorant, moronic, false, and irritating.
It is not even logical.

Well i dont generally say such things unless i think the person in question is being a douche, in your case i can understand it.
But honestly wen i think about ppl that i have met who have been religious, true religious, they have allways been that way because of certain events in their lives that disturb them, they end up seeking comfort in religion and it pretty much ends up being like a mental disorder. They beleive one unlikely thing, only that thing, whoere else doesnt goes to hell and thats fine by them.
When u have seen a couple of these intense crazies u kinda do get into that mentality.

pern i work for a charity i can assure you as a major employer to thousands it does make a difference in many ways and to many people's lives

Constipator wrote:Since many of the people here like to bash religion constantly and say it's just a waste of time, I'm curious. What DO you believe in? Do you value ANYTHING at all that isn't material or what's just in front of your eyes?

Even though the events in the Bible are very unlikely and all that, you can't deny one thing: it's very well written. I don't go around believing all that shit in it exists, but I do think that there are extremely good lessons to learn from the Bible (and a good preacher/priest) whether you believe it or not. The stories and philosophy within the Bible all have good things to learn from them, just like the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, etc. did.

you don't have to be religious to be be spiritual or have a deeper look into things to learn from them. or even believe in higher powers like god, angels and so on. religion is, to me, more of a sect than a spiritual path. the main religions do not teach you it's all in you. they don't tell you you don't NEED anyone to show you the road and that all you will ever need is inside. they do quite the opposite - they teach you you're bad from birth and that if you don't do this or that you'll go to hell. they present god as the human character ever. as if a supreme being who basically created the entire universe can get angry, feel jealousy, vindication or remorse, order the death of others and act quite insecure in regards to the existence of other spiritual teachings other than his. ho hum...sounds more like a fucking politician more than anything remotely related to spirit or quest. sounds like governing and controlling more than guiding and loving. religion will be a positive thing in my view the day they STOP asking people for money, tell them they're sinners and kill in the name of Allah, Jehova or Jesus.
religion could not exist were it not for man's dullness and the fact our society is not based on education but on achievements.

when my kid comes home from the kindergarten crying cus another kid hit her i'd hold her and let her feel good about how she feels and then talk about what happened and why she thinks the other kid hit her. other parents may tell their kid they should be strong, not cry and not ever let nobody hit them and that they should hit back.

my kid will grow up and not fall into addictions (drugs, food, sex) when she faces failure, loneliness or fear - she will face her fears and move on while the other kid will probably attack and then meet the consequences: if they fail a test at school they'll most probably attack the teacher, a fellow student or give up on education altogether. when their heart gets broken for the first time they'll most probably resign from love and the opposite sex, deeming them inferior (feminism, chauvinism), have bad relationships and generally not look after themselves.
guess which one of the two is the easier to ensnare in religion or cults.
guess who has the stronger backbone.

our society thrives on our fears. True spirituality empowers and nurtures you. this begets True Communities as which the main religions fear.

sry for the wall of text. you asked

There are no Christian missionaries around the world caring for the poor and feeding the hungry, as the Bible commands.

oh yes there are. you've no idea how much money and resources are being constantly sent to those in need. by not only Christians mind you. but lol...come over to Israel. come see who gets the food and supplies the numerous organizations send to the poor bastards in Gaza. with the ridiculous amounts of money and supplies going in there for years Gaza should've been a freaking metropolitan by now playing the stock market!!!!
while you're looking at the endless convoys of human love flowing into the middle east go check out central Africa. see who gets the charity over there.
you really have no idea what's going on in the world eh?

Thread....devolving......into......bad.........philosophy argument..........must..............not..........masturbate.......................

read the thread title and BI's first post inviting people to discuss a highly esoteric topic.

I haven't made a philosophical argument. My point is that:

-Folks like Ko and Pern are ignorant and foolish.
-Atheism accounts for zero.
-Religion is universal and pervasive because it is important.
-The value of religion is is diminished by bullshit argument that fail to mention the accomplishments of religious people and religion in general.
-Atheists are often not satisfied with having no belief. They go further, into insults and attacks.
-My point about charity is that it DOES exist, yet is never mentioned (ko) or diminished (Roobrain).
-The History of mankind is the story of belief not atheism.

Furthermore, the really huge piles of dead people through history are not the result of religion. Religion was not behind the truly horrendous 20th Century losses.

Constipator wrote:Since many of the people here like to bash religion constantly and say it's just a waste of time, I'm curious. What DO you believe in? Do you value ANYTHING at all that isn't material or what's just in front of your eyes?

Even though the events in the Bible are very unlikely and all that, you can't deny one thing: it's very well written. I don't go around believing all that shit in it exists, but I do think that there are extremely good lessons to learn from the Bible (and a good preacher/priest) whether you believe it or not. The stories and philosophy within the Bible all have good things to learn from them, just like the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, etc. did.

yah, my fav part of the bible is when Jephthah, sacrifices his daughter cause he made a vow with god.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I haven't made a philosophical argument. My point is that:

-Folks like Ko and Pern are ignorant and foolish.
-Atheism accounts for zero.
-Religion is universal and pervasive because it is important.
-The value of religion is is diminished by bullshit argument that fail to mention the accomplishments of religious people and religion in general.
-Atheists are often not satisfied with having no belief. They go further, into insults and attacks.
-My point about charity is that it DOES exist, yet is never mentioned (ko) or diminished (Roobrain).
-The History of mankind is the story of belief not atheism.

Furthermore, the really huge piles of dead people through history are not the result of religion. Religion was not behind the truly horrendous 20th Century losses.

I dont know dude. I think organized religion has been more destructive then anything in our existence. If people wanna believe in some magical man then so be it, it's there choice to do so. I personally dont buy into any of that stuff. I just live my life to it's fullest with enough self esteem to not worry about such things. It's quite possible that we didnt originate from this planet to begin with. I think that there are to many people in this world that really need to realize just how big the universe is and that our existence on this Earth has not been long enough to amount to dick. Science is always advancing and as science advances, religion falls. For example, go back just a few hundred years ago and there were people that thought the Earth was the center of the universe. I really hope Im around when we discover intelligent life on another planet so I can witness the outcome of such a discovery and the effect it will have on organized religion. Should make for an interesting time.

The Argumentalizer wrote:-Religion is universal and pervasive because it is important.

I threw up a little in my mouth.

Blasphemy wrote:

Constipator wrote:Since many of the people here like to bash religion constantly and say it's just a waste of time, I'm curious. What DO you believe in? Do you value ANYTHING at all that isn't material or what's just in front of your eyes?

Even though the events in the Bible are very unlikely and all that, you can't deny one thing: it's very well written. I don't go around believing all that shit in it exists, but I do think that there are extremely good lessons to learn from the Bible (and a good preacher/priest) whether you believe it or not. The stories and philosophy within the Bible all have good things to learn from them, just like the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, etc. did.

yah, my fav part of the bible is when Jephthah, sacrifices his daughter cause he made a vow with god.

You'd think god woulda let that one slide, but noooooooooo...
I also like how people use the "wisdom" of Solomon to justify beating their kids, but they never pay attention to the fact that Solomon's son grew up to be one of the biggest dickholes in the bible.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I haven't made a philosophical argument. My point is that:

-Folks like Ko and Pern are ignorant and foolish.
-Atheism accounts for zero.
-Religion is universal and pervasive because it is important.
-The value of religion is is diminished by bullshit argument that fail to mention the accomplishments of religious people and religion in general.
-Atheists are often not satisfied with having no belief. They go further, into insults and attacks.
-My point about charity is that it DOES exist, yet is never mentioned (ko) or diminished (Roobrain).
-The History of mankind is the story of belief not atheism.

Furthermore, the really huge piles of dead people through history are not the result of religion. Religion was not behind the truly horrendous 20th Century losses.

The fact that u think ur making a point still is obsurd though, u dont make points, because u dont make an argument.
Stating the same things over and over again doesnt make them true.

Religion wasnt behind the truly horrendous losses? Really? Even after the argument we had in that other thread i remember, u still think that hitler and the ppl under his rule were athiest?
Sorry but that was, once again, a religious deal. Religion was used to persecute another sect of religious ppl.

As for charity exisiting, err?
Sure, it would exist without religion, because ppl do have motives and morals outside of religion, fur fuck sake.

Next time someone tells me I'm going to hell for not believing in God I'm calling the cops. Verbal threats

I did make an argument. I stated that you and others have a completely ignorant view of the role of religion through history. You short change the value a belief system represents. Even worse, you present a bogus Religion OR Science argument which is nonsense. Even the notion that religion has been at the root of the worse slaughters in human history is false. Patently false.

Extreme atheism, replacing religious belief with science, banning religion, or the restriction of religious belief is far more destructive. The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, North Vietnam are examples of replacing religion with the state and have FAILED utterly to lead to successful civil societies.
6 million Jews perished in pursuit of Nazism, a state religion substitute. Evidently you and others believe Hitler was a Christian or something.
Pern hasn't told us what religion Hitler was following that allowed him to murder millions. Why? Because he CANNOT!

As far as Science is concerned, there is no either/or argument. This argument is shallow, ignorant, and false. Great scientific leaps have happened simultaneously with religion. Only in a few minor exceptions does one find science eschewed in the name of religion.
The Catholic Church, Judaism, even Islam has been instrumental in discoveries and the preservation of science.

I folks want to say others have a mental disease, they should be ready for a withering counter-argument.
If you claim that there is no place for religion, religion is harmful, or religion precludes science, then YOU HAVE an argument to present. I don't see one.

Charity is a small factor!?!?! What NONSENSE!

TiGGy wrote:Next time someone tells me I'm going to hell for not believing in God I'm calling the cops. Verbal threats

Someone has personally told you that?
Let's not restrict a discussion of religion and it's value to anecdotes and bumper stickers from extremists.

Blasphemy wrote:yah, my fav part of the bible is when Jephthah, sacrifices his daughter cause he made a vow with god.

Isn't that story really only for someone who totally believes in God and Christianity? Like I said "I don't go around believing all that shit in it exists." My point is that there are lots of stories in the Bible that one can learn a lot from without believing in it. Look at Jesus' teachings of nonviolence, for instance; I'm pretty sure a certain black pastor used those in the 1960s to unite and forward the civil rights movement. You don't have to believe in God to see that it worked.

The Argumentalizer wrote:6 million Jews perished in pursuit of Nazism, a state religion substitute. Evidently you and others believe Hitler was a Christian or something.
Pern hasn't told us what religion Hitler was following that allowed him to murder millions. Why? Because he CANNOT!

Err, man, ur so bad. Maybe u should go back through that other thread. Firstly i told u he was brought up in a roman catholic family, secondly there are quotes of hitler i used to get my point across, and thirdly i did mention that Hitlers beliefs shifted throughout his life, wether or not he actually beleived in his religion of choice or used it doesnt matter. The fact remains that religion was his tool, his propaganda. Get it?

I think i'll just go talk to a brick wall. Atleast i wont have to repeat myself.

The Argumentalizer wrote:If you claim that there is no place for religion, religion is harmful, or religion precludes science, then YOU HAVE an argument to present. I don't see one.

To be honest i wasnt trying to make any particular point in this thread, i was merely picking at some of the stupid things u keep repeating.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Charity is a small factor!?!?! What NONSENSE!

Nice argument thar, like usual.

Anyone ever been to an AA meeting and get into the big book or is it the big book. Whichever some people that have a negative view of god and religion could use reading that... although it would require you to possibly change your world view which some here seem unwilling to do.

facts.

* Adolf Hitler was a known Roman Catholic and went to church until the end of his life. he had this story where a voice had warned him about an upcoming danger that hurled him out of a ditch he was in at the time. as soon as he ran away a shell came down and BAAAAAM! dear boy. he was saved!

* Most of history's genocides went down under the scepter of the Cross, be it the endless crusades to Jerusalem and pretty much all corners of the earth or the numerous booty campaign of the ever expanding Christian England (same group includes, France, Germany, Belgium, and of course Spain and others). second place reserved to the Roman Empire...moving on..not religion-related. third place are the Muslims who took on the world (And still are Hahahha) = anyone who doesn't serve Allah MUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

My country is sodden with the blood of both sides on a dispute over ...you guessed it...whose God is hung lower.

* Charity has nothing to do with religion but with people and compassion. in fact, religion seems to take in all man's best traits and put the negative ones on Satan and disbelievers.

The Argumentalizer wrote:-Atheists are often not satisfied with having no belief. They go further, into insults and attacks.

-Folks like Ko and Pern are ignorant and foolish.
-My point about charity is that it DOES exist, yet is never mentioned (ko) or diminished (Roobrain).

Wrong! Wars that had nothing to do with religion.

The Civil War- 1/2 a million dead.
WWI - millions dead
WWII -Tens of millions dead.
The Vietnam War
The Korean War
The French Revolutionary Terror
The Peloponnesian War
The 100 years war.

-The Soviet Union 20 million dead, having nothing to do with religion. In fact, the by product of a scientific Rationalist state featuring Marxism and atheism.
-China- tens of millions dead at the hand of Atheist Mao and the Communist Party in China.

The Crusades? Wars having nothing to do with religion completely dwarf the numbers of dead.

It isn't factually true that religion is the big killer through history.
Even in Wars where religion played a part were not completely wars of religion.
Even the deaths occurring in clashes between Jews and Muslims is relatively small compared to the massacres elsewhere.

Also, if one can prove some alternate history, where religion has stifled science generally, and the gains of mankind/civil rights is devoid of religion or a triumph of Atheism, LET'S HEAR IT.
Folks like to run off at the mouth, saying others have mental disease and point out stupid facts like Hitler being raised Catholic, anecdotal nonsense that proves nothing, but they have no real argument.
We arrived at where we are right now WITH RELIGION as a major force in history.
Atheism has contributed nothing at all!

Religion plays a role more often then u think there.

I'll use vietnam as an example.

"In the 17th Century, French missionaries arrived in Vietnam. The Catholic priests received a friendly welcome from the Vietnamese people and they were allowed to live and work in the country. However, the Vietnamese authorities became concerned when the missionaries began to recruit the local people to Roman Catholicism. The converted Catholics were told to abandon their religious customs including that of taking several wives. The missionaries also instructed their followers to give their loyalty to God rather than to their Emperor. Hostility towards the Christian missionaries grew and over the years there were several cases of priests being murdered."

"President Diem, an elite Vietnamese Catholic, was a widely unpopular ruler, despised for his ruthless policies and his religious bigotry. In a country dominated by small farmers, peasants, and Buddhists (roughly 85% of the population), Diem unapologetically favored the Catholic minority and the landlord class.71 He granted public services, land grants, and tax exemptions to these groups, and freed all Catholics from corvée work—unpaid, state-enforced labor. His government forbade non-Catholics from carrying weapons; officers in Diem's Army of the Republic of Vietnam were pressured to convert to Catholicism lest they lose their ranking or be denied firearms. And in villages throughout the countryside, the military forcefully—and often violently—converted non-Catholic civilians.

But Vietnamese citizens could do little to challenge his regime. The South Vietnamese government—a political system supported and in many ways created by the United States—was democratic in name, but not in practice. With each year, Diem stiffened punishment for dissent, and imposed bans on all forms of expression perceived as subversive, rebellious, or incendiary, including the display of any flag other than the national flag of South Vietnam."

This is only a small part of a bigger story ofcourse, but religion, is allways there in the background at the very least.

this should be locked. nobody will ever see eye to eye on this subject.

And what religion were the Viet Cong and the Communists in the north, when they started a campaign of murder espionage and assassination in the South?

You don't point out any defect in religion. You point out a defect in the Diem and his government and a defect in North Vietnam.

Again, you make NO ARGUMENT that religion caused the Vietnam war. It wasn't an internal conflict between two religion's. It was a conflict between Communism and something else.

And do you make the claim that religion was the cause of any other war?
Support it.
quti lobbing tangential facts that don't support your argument.

I wasnt, valar did, in pwnage style fassion.

I was merely pointing out that even wen religion doesnt cause war it is allways there in the background causing trouble. And it allways will be, well, until there is no religion, or only 1 religion left.

Religion is on the decline especially here in the UK.

Word

I suppose Hitler invaded his neighbors in defense of Catholicism.
And the Viet Cong were fighting for Buddhism.
And Stalin was using religious text when he massacred 20 million people.

And Timothy McVeigh was baptized.
And Mao helped a little old lady across the street once.
And Atheism leads to scientific discoveries.
And Religion played no role in the founding of the United States.
And nihilism is a fine replacement for religion.
And TV can add meaning to your life.

Yeah, i've seen all the false arguments about Atheism and religion.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I suppose Hitler invaded his neighbors in defense of Catholicism.
And the Viet Cong were fighting for Buddhism.
And Stalin was using religious text when he massacred 20 million people.

And Timothy McVeigh was baptized.
And Mao helped a little old lady across the street once.
And Atheism leads to scientific discoveries.
And Religion played no role in the founding of the United States.
And nihilism is a fine replacement for religion.
And TV can add meaning to your life.

Yeah, i've seen all the false arguments about Atheism and religion.

Arguments or not, you have to admit that believing in some all powerful dude in the sky that watches our every move is a little "out there". It's this type of blind faith that is scary to me.

The Argumentalizer wrote:And nihilism is a fine replacement for religion.

I find it odd that u call athiests nihilists. Not believing in something so obsurd and obviously fictional makes me a nihilist?

The Argumentalizer wrote:Yeah, i've seen all the false arguments about Atheism and religion.

And lost XD

And ur notion that athiests are evil war mongerers are obsurd. Some are, some arent, it really has nothing to do with them being athiest. Its not like athiests go to war with other athiests because their beliefs somehow differ......This does hapen, has hapened, and most likely will keep on hapeing with religion.
Though ppl will allways have reasons to go to war with and without religion, without, obviously there would be LESS conflict.

No matter who you are, you believe in a higher power then yourself. Either in the front of your mind or in the back something drives you. There is a fundamental answer to the question why are we here, it is the curse of conciseness as we know it. The way it is used in AA is unique. One of the 12 steps to becoming clean is giving in and letting your higher power help you as you see it. Either God, Jesus, Ali, Budduh, a Tree, the earth, a special person to you.

THE MEDICAL VIEW ON A.A.

Since Dr. Silkworth’s first endorsement of Alcoholics Anonymous, medical societies and physicians throughout the world have set their approval upon us. Following are excerpts from the comments of doctors present at the annual meeting* of the Medical Society of the State of New York where a paper on A.A. was read:

Dr. Foster Kennedy, neurologist: “This organization of Alcoholics Anonymous calls on two of the greatest reservoirs of power known to man, religion and that instinct for association with one’s fellows . . . the ‘herd instinct.’ I think our profession must take appreciative cognizance of this great therapeutic weapon. If we do not do so, we shall stand convicted of emotional sterility and of having lost the faith that moves mountains, without which medicine can do little.”

Dr. G. Kirby Collier, psychiatrist: “I have felt that A.A. is a group unto themselves and their best results can be had under their own guidance, as a result of their philosophy. Any therapeutic or philosophic procedure which can prove a recovery rate of 50% to 60% must merit our consideration.”

Dr. Harry M. Tiebout, psychiatrist: “As a psychiatrist, I have thought a great deal about the relationship of my specialty to A.A. and I have come to the conclusion that our particular function can very often lie in preparing the way for the patient to accept any sort of treatment or outside help. I now conceive the psychiatrist’s job to be the task of breaking down the patient’s inner resistance so that which is inside him will flower, as under the activity of the A.A. program.”

Dr. W. W. Bauer, broadcasting under the auspices of The American Medical Association in 1946, over the NBC network, said, in part: “Alcoholics Anonymous are no crusaders; not a temperance society. They know that they must never drink. They help others with similar problems . . . In this atmosphere the alcoholic often overcomes his excessive concentration upon himself. Learning to depend upon a higher power and absorb himself in his work with other alcoholics, he remains sober day by day. The days add up into weeks, the weeks into months and years.”

Dr. John F. Stouffer, Chief Psychiatrist, Philadelphia General Hospital, citing his experience with A.A., said: “The alcoholics we get here at Philadelphia General are mostly those who cannot afford private treatment, and A.A. is by far the greatest thing we have been able to offer them. Even among those who occasionally land back in here again, we observe a profound change in personality. You would hardly recognize them.”

The American Psychiatric Association requested, in 1949, that a paper be prepared by one of the older members of Alcoholics Anonymous to be read at the Association’s annual meeting of that year. This was done, and the paper was printed in the American Journal of Psychiatry for November 1949.

(This address is now available in pamphlet form at nominal cost through most A.A. groups or from Box 459, Grand Central Station, New York, NY 10163, under the title “Three Talks to Medical Societies by Bill W.”—formerly called “Bill on Alcoholism” and earlier “Alcoholism the Illness.”)

_________
* 1944

Check out the APPENDICES

http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_tableofcnt.cfm

Yes Pern, you are nihilistic, at least from what i have read.

Frankly, if their is no design, no creator, nothing higher than man...that is nihilist in my mind,, or at best existential.

Science is limited. It does not explain everything. It doesn't answer why you here, what your purpose is, and most importantly, why we should act any better than animals with deadly reasoning.

What DO you believe in? What is there left? Art? Drugs? What gives true meaning to life?
Are we all just plopped here in a universe that just happened.
It is a fallacy that religion precludes science.
It is false that science disproves a creator or design.
It is not true that there is a strong either/or Science vs Religion argument.

I am not trying to preach, only to argue that a lot of what Atheists think is nonsense, even if they have some valid points to make. I don't care if one believes or not, only that they are challenged by a strong realistic argument.

I have not seen any good argument that religion is a mental disease.
I don't see a winning case that religion causes massive slaughter or has no or little value.

I never said atheists NECESSARILY are evil warmongers. You just made that up.
It wasn't my point.
I just pointed to the millions and millions killed having little or nothing to do with religious philosophy or belief.
Nothing i have ever seen makes a convincing argument. If it did, i would consider it.
------------------------------------------------------
"Though ppl will always have reasons to go to war with and without religion, without, obviously there would be LESS conflict."

I see no proof or case for this. it is merely conjecture on your part. It is not obvious to me that a world without religion would be more peaceful.

The Argumentalizer wrote:What DO you believe in? What is there left? Art? Drugs? What gives true meaning to life?.

Allready discussed in another thread, wish ur memory was as good as mine. Not to say mine is especially good, but urs is especially bad <.<

The Argumentalizer wrote:Science is limited. It does not explain everything. It doesn't answer why you here, what your purpose is, and most importantly, why we should act any better than animals with deadly reasoning.

No one can answer that, so wen someone tries i know they are either lying or something is going on mentally.

The Argumentalizer wrote:It is false that science disproves a creator or design.

That statement counters itself. Going by the true meaning of the word science.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I am not trying to preach, only to argue that a lot of what Atheists think is nonsense, even if they have some valid points to make. I don't care if one believes or not, only that they are challenged by a strong realistic argument.

But u dont argue, ur post above proves this once more, u make statements, then leave. Then wen someone challenges u, u make more statements, nothing more.
Religion causes conflict, yes? You cannot deny that, unless u are deluding urself.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I never said atheists NECESSARILY are evil warmongers. You just made that up.

U strongly implied that certain ppl waged war because of their athiesm causing them to have a lack morals/purpose etc.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Though ppl will always have reasons to go to war with and without religion, without, obviously there would be LESS conflict."

I see no proof or case for this. It is merely conjecture on your part. It is not obvious to me that a world without religion would be more peaceful.

Really? Wow..........wwwooooww.
One word, muslum.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Yes Pern, you are nihilistic, at least from what i have read.

I have not seen any good argument that religion is a mental disease.
I don't see a winning case that religion causes massive slaughter or has no or little value.

I call bullshit.

The Argumentalizer wrote:It is not obvious to me that a world without religion would be more peaceful.

There is one thing that I know for certain. This world would be more peaceful and better off without Islam.

After making all those points, arguments, out right counters to nonsense, and then to hear that i don't argue anything, is, well nihilism.

Have a nice day. You haven't supported anything you believe or don't believe with semantic games and anecdotes.
And this is a different thread. If you want to bump THAT thread and continue, go ahead.
I'm not buying that nonsense.
And a few photos of extremists doesn't prove anything.


"Really? Wow..........wwwooooww.
One word, muslum."

Listen up nihilist.
There are a billion Muslims.
The majority of them aren't engaged in warfare with anyone.
Many oppose the extremists.
I'm out. I've seen quite enough nonsense for a day.

the conversation turns bland on the account of terms. let's change the term to better understand each other. i suggest: Extremism. cool?
do we all agree that Extremism is a plague which should be dealt with?
We clearly all do. now let us move the fuck on and join up in the fight against the L337 Extremism that sticks to the old book of Lockdown and the scrolls of LostVillage.

Love is God - God is Love - Girls and Boys love God above.

mmmm there are alot of muslims engaged in violence as well.

And u still dont get it, extremists are the result of religion, ie a point of my argument.
U cant say that religion doesnt cause conflict cause extremists dont count in your book?
Doesnt make sense. This is part of wat i meant wen i said believing in something for ther sake of comfort is irresponsible.

Something fishy about those signs.

keefy wrote:Something fishy about those signs.

especially that shot on the edge of the 18 yard box

The Argumentalizer wrote: Listen up nihilist.
There are a billion Muslims.
The majority of them aren't engaged in warfare with anyone.
Many oppose the extremists.
I'm out. I've seen quite enough nonsense for a day.

Yeah there are plenty of Muslims that are like a lot of Christians that pick and choose what to follow when it comes to their good book (the Qur'an in this case) and are not extremists and just wanna live their lives. Those that follow its teachings to the letter are the ones that are the issue. The book is not peaceful in nature. For example:

Mohamed must have been high the day he wrote this :

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah.

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it.

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them.

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people.

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding.

and it goes on and on..... http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html

I thought Pern and Ko and ...were talking about RELIGION in general, which includes all religions.

That you aren't a fan of Islam is understandable.
It doesn't explain animosity towards other religions.
Or the concept as a whole.
Or ignoring (not saying you) 10's of millions of dead at the hands of Atheism.
Or diminishing the actual role of religion in History.
Or claiming belief in a creator is a mental illness.
Or the thought that Atheism has anything positive to offer.
Or the thought Atheism is better somehow than Theism.
Or you can have Science or Religion but not both.
Or the fact that bringing up all these points is not making an argument, as Pernicious so stupidly puts it.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Or ignoring (not saying you) 10's of millions of dead at the hands of Atheism.

There u go again, at the hands of atheism. ........????
Wen a group atheists is responsible for something like war/torture u cant actually generalise and say that atheism on the whole was responsible for it, for the simple reason that atheism has no set of guidelines or rules that lead ppl to do any particular thing. Theres no atheist bible or anything, every individual has there own motives and reasoning.
So how are there 10's of millions of ppl dead at the hands of atheism.
Secondly, all religions have caused/been responsible/a part of war/violence/etc Even budhism. But there are so many more reasons to hate religion.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Or claiming belief in a creator is a mental illness.

Beleiving whole heartedly in something and disregarding all other possibilities because it provides comfort generally requires some fault in ones personality.
And to be perfectly honest strongly suggests weakness.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Or the thought that Atheism has anything positive to offer.

I dont get that statement or why u keep saying it. U will beleive in something because it has something to offer u, even if theres a good chance, thats its pure bullshit?
Also, i dont care for labels, i dont beleive in religion, i dont beleive it is a good thing, i beleive that the universe/multiverse(who knows).. is extremly complex, anything or anyone who claims to have all the answers is fucked as far as im concerned. I am a fan of quantum mechanics and how it gets u thinking of the possibilities.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Or the fact that bringing up all these points is not making an argument, as Pernicious so stupidly puts it.

The "points" are generally bad ones, the other things dont make logical sense, and wen someone argues against ur points u ignore them completly in ur next post as if u understood none of it at all.
This is why ppl hate arguing with u.

Whatever. I supposed you polled them all!
What i did was argue logical points while you pick and choose a few and find anecdotal exceptions, while leaving the bulk of the argument alone.
You then go on to claim i am not arguing.
This little game is well known and i am not playing whack a mole with you.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I thought Pern and Ko and ...were talking about RELIGION in general, which includes all religions.

That you aren't a fan of Islam is understandable.
It doesn't explain animosity towards other religions.
Or the concept as a whole.
Or ignoring (not saying you) 10's of millions of dead at the hands of Atheism.
Or diminishing the actual role of religion in History.
Or claiming belief in a creator is a mental illness.
Or the thought that Atheism has anything positive to offer.
Or the thought Atheism is better somehow than Theism.
Or you can have Science or Religion but not both.
Or the fact that bringing up all these points is not making an argument, as Pernicious so stupidly puts it.

I am talking about religion in general. Only reason Im bringing up Islam is because of the current events in the world. If we were having this discussion during the time of the Crusades, I'd be using it as an example. The belief people have in a higher being is their own business as far as Im concerned, it's the organized religion that bothers me as I've stated in previous posts. As for the rest of your points:
- Pern covered your 10's of millions of dead at the hands of Atheism pretty much. Just because someone like Stalin was Atheist, doesnt mean he slaughtered in the name of it. Many wars have been based strictly off religion. You wont find many wars caused solely because of Atheism.
- You are right, religion has played a very big role in History. I simply believe that it's role has been more negative then positive.
- Belief in a creator isnt a mental illness. Belief in some guy watching over our every move or belief that if we do something very bad we go to hell is a mental illness though.
- Being an Atheist has nothing to do with if someone is going to lead a negative or positive life. How can it? An Atheist doesnt have to worry about some all mighty being striking them down in his name if they dont do what they are preached to do.
- I think it is
- Science and Religion can coexist, they are coexisting right now. I just feel that as science advances, religion falls back. There is plenty of historical evidence of this just within the past 100 years.
- I think you bring up a good argument, but you arent making very good points to support it lol

Note that its religion i claimed to be a mental illness, not an abstract belief in creationism.

Conceiving the possibility that a concious force triggered the big bang is worlds away from claiming that [insert fantasy novel of choice here] is actually 100% fact and explains all of the great questions of the universe within its tiny handful of pages, then trying to force (be it via politics, violence, or what have you) the contents of said fantasy novel upon everyone else.

i think its a safe bet that more people have died in the twentieth century’s secular wars than in the preceding fifty centuries of all fighting combined.

perhaps nationalism and ideology are a bit more dangerous than religion?

Religion is used in every war to create an us vs them mentality, so generally even if the war is for some other reason, religion is allways involved.
Hell, even the war in Iraq, bush needed his religion to help him get elected as president. etc

Allways there, in the background.

Stone forest!
http://saturnic.livejournal.com/385746.html


Sorry, so yea, religion

Pernicious wrote:Religion is used in every war to create an us vs them mentality, so generally even if the war is for some other reason, religion is allways involved.
Hell, even the war in Iraq, bush needed his religion to help him get elected as president. etc

Allways there, in the background.

utter bullshit and i cant believe you're ignorant enough to believe, let alone perpetuate such fallacies.

bush went to church, a christian voted for him, he became president, then started a war... hence its a religious war?

an atheist soldier in a moment of self doubt prays, if you exist God let me live through this... hence its a religious war?

any volunteer military force anywhere in the world has a handful of rabbi's, priest, clergy, clerics.... hence its a religious war?

15 million christians die in soviet prison camps... hence its a "religious" revolution?

did the bolsheviks choose their victims because they were christians, or dissidents, or middle class, or just in the way? five times as many teachers and professors, and more than seven times as many physicians, died at the hands of the bolsheviks than did priests.

gtfo.

what creates an "us vs them" mentality is ANY method of dehumanizing the enemy. dehumanization has been directed against perceived racial or ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, genders, minorities of various sexual orientations, disabled people as a class, economic and social classes.

I don't mind religion. I think it serves a useful tool to keep masses of common peoples subserviant to inheritantly re-active rather then pro-active ideals in the political world; in essence religion serves to create a idealogical barrier between ruler and ruled, wherein the ruled through the slowing of true moral progression by the tool of religion are unable to conceptualize and grasp the necessity of the extent and scope of evil and self-servance in the true political world where moral advancement progresses at a brutal pace far removed from the rest of the world.

In this fashion the ruler can continually and with relative ease through secrecy and devised evil can perpetually continue to hold power.






wait wtf did I just write?

Pernicious wrote:Religion is used in every war to create an us vs them mentality, so generally even if the war is for some other reason, religion is allways involved.
Hell, even the war in Iraq, bush needed his religion to help him get elected as president. etc

Allways there, in the background.

lol if you are gonna use this as excuse to say religion caused every war. You could also say that science caused the war since people used science to create the tools used in every war.

do you guys honestly think that there would be no or less wars without religion? Wars are started for resources and power. Look in the animal kingdom, plently of social animals go to battle over resources without religion HOW COULD THAT BE GOD DIDN"T TELL DEM ZOMG

Sacrifist wrote:- Pern covered your 10's of millions of dead at the hands of Atheism pretty much. Just because someone like Stalin was Atheist, doesnt mean he slaughtered in the name of it. Many wars have been based strictly off religion. You wont find many wars caused solely because of Atheism.

Sure Stalin didn't murder in the name of Atheist but he did in the name of keeping and or gaining power. The same for most mass murders or wars despite the use of relegion as a tool to get it started..






.

Here's a plausible death toll for three of the 'possibly' worst tyrants:

TYRANT DEATHS
Mao 40Million
Hitler 34M
Stalin 20M

well, that certainly looks like Mao is our man, but wait. Mao's largest crime is the Great Leap Forward, a bungled attempt to restructure the economy of China which created a famine that killed some 30M. If we confine our indictment to deliberate killings, we get this:

TYRANT KILLINGS
Hitler 34M
Stalin 20M
Mao 10M

So it's Hitler, right? Except that most of the deaths on his head were caused by the Second World War. Sure, he started it, but our society does not blanketly condemn the starting of wars (after all, we reserve the right to do it ourselves in a just cause), and we certainly don't consider killing armed enemy soldiers in a fair fight to be a crime against humanity. If we therefore confine ourselves to the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants, our table rearranges itself again:

TYRANT MURDERS
Stalin 20M
Hitler 15M
Mao 10M

This brings Stalin floating to the top. So it look like once you reduce their crimes to the unjustifiably lowest common denominator, then Stalin is worst; however, you might want to argue that dead is dead so it really doesn't matter if you give your victims a chance to fight back. Fighting an unjust or reckless war is certainly a crime against humanity, so our numbers should go back to:

TYRANT KILLINGS
Hitler 34M
Stalin 20M
Mao 10M

... and these are just the problems we'll encounter if we accept these numbers without debate. If we want to use the estimates of other scholars, we can pin up to 50 million murders on Stalin, enough to push him to the top of the list regardless of definition. Or we can whittle him down to 10 million murders if we use the low end of the margin of error, and scrounge several more tens of millions for Mao, or away from him.

So, the answer to the question of "Who is roasting on the hottest fires in Hell?" is "Well, that depends..."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honorable Mentions (i'm not all that good with the names of famous/infamous religious leaders... so perhaps pern could point them out to me on this list) responsible for over a million unjust, unnecessary or unnatural deaths by initiating or intensifying war, famine, democide or resettlement, or by allowing people under their control to do so:

Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-49)
Enver Pasha (Turkey: 1913-18)
Hirohito (Japan: 1926-89)
Hirota Koki (Japan: 1936-37)
Ho Chi Minh (North Vietnam: 1945-69)
Kim Il Sung (North Korea: 1948-94)
Lenin (USSR: 1917-24)
Leopold II (Belgium: 1865-1909)
Nicholas II (Russia: 1894-1917)
Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-79)
Saddam Hussein (Iraq: 1969- )
Tojo Hideki (Japan: 1941-44)
Wilhelm II (Germany: 1888-1918)
Yahya Khan (Pakistan: 1969-71)

Here are a few of the century's rulers who could easily be indicted for causing hundreds of thousands of unnatural deaths. Although some might be acquitted due to inadequate evidence or mitigating circumstances, it might be a good idea to not build statues to them:

Idi Amin (Uganda: 1971-80)
Ion Antonescu (Romania: 1940-44)
Ataturk (Turkey: 1920-38)
Francisco Franco (Spain: 1939-75)
Gheoghe Gheorghiu-Dej (Romania: 1945-65)
Yakubu Gowon (Nigeria: 1966-76)
Radovan Karadzic (Serbian Bosnia: 1991-96)
Babrac Kemal (Afghanistan: 1979-87)
Le Duan (Vietnam: 1976-86)
Haile Mengistu (Ethiopia: 1974-91)
Benito Mussolini (Italy: 1922-43)
Ante Pavelic (Croatia: 1941-45)
Antonio de Salazar (Portugal: 1932-68)
Hadji Suharto (Indonesia: 1967-97)
Tito (Yugoslavia: 1945-80)

source - http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

CellarDweller wrote: So it's Hitler, right? Except that most of the deaths on his head were caused by the Second World War. Sure, he started it, but our society does not blanketly condemn the starting of wars (after all, we reserve the right to do it ourselves in a just cause), and we certainly don't consider killing armed enemy soldiers in a fair fight to be a crime against humanity. If we therefore confine ourselves to the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants, our table rearranges itself again:

TYRANT MURDERS
Stalin 20M
Hitler 15M
Mao 10M

wait WTF??? WW2 was started unprovoked. for no end whatsoever but for the Narcissistic fantasies of Adolf Hitler. Hitler took on the world with the agenda to 1) Occupy Europe and then 2) the entire world! this was known and publicized.
his agenda included REMOVAL of all none-pure blooded Aryans - including Jews, Homosexual and ALL colored races from the face of the earth. this is not just cause in any book or logic.

honest, all this talk about religion started all the wars on earth is a tree we should climb down off lol, and who is the biggest asshole in the history of man is just derailing the thread. it's nothing to do with Religion per Se.
The "Religion" we're talking about here is the formulated one. the institutionalized one (pun intended).
i'm saying that type of Religion is the biggest negative force not because it kills people but because it deflates the spirit and weakens the mind.
i'm saying those who think they're being empowered by religion are actually being empowered by spirituality and not the religious SYSTEM. Empowerment is Joy. It isn't Evangelic Amok or Black Magic Trance and it sure as hell not Giving your Money to Jesus.

quite a few on that list such as Tito, Lenin and Ataturk considered heroes in thier countries (or former countries) where's chauchescu by the way!!

Pernicious wrote:Religion is used in every war to create an us vs them mentality, so generally even if the war is for some other reason, religion is allways involved.
Hell, even the war in Iraq, bush needed his religion to help him get elected as president. etc

Allways there, in the background.

that's not really accurate Pern? the 100 year war certainly wasn't neither was the war of the roses or the initial invasion by iraq in the first gulf war

I am saying that religion is generally a tool in war, even if only a in a small way.
Im not sure wat u mean lead in your last post. Wat wasnt wat?

America ALLWAYS utilises its religion in war. And how can it not, its fundamental.
Hell, MASH, tv series about war, wat do they fuckin have? A preist.

CellarDweller wrote:what creates an "us vs them" mentality is ANY method of dehumanizing the enemy. dehumanization has been directed against perceived racial or ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, genders, minorities of various sexual orientations, disabled people as a class, economic and social classes.

Yes, religious groups being a part of that u arent going against my point <.<
u seem to think that i meant any war involving religion is therefore a religious war, i admitted earlier that certainly wasnt the case.
MY point is that religion IS allways causing trouble, u could say my point is that religion is the tool of evil?

Pernicious wrote:lol if you are gonna use this as excuse to say religion caused every war. You could also say that science caused the war since people used science to create the tools used in every war.

do you guys honestly think that there would be no or less wars without religion? Wars are started for resources and power. Look in the animal kingdom, plently of social animals go to battle over resources without religion HOW COULD THAT BE GOD DIDN"T TELL DEM ZOM.

u guys must not be reading my previous posts cause i made this clear allready.
Religion causes ppl to segregate, it is clearly used as a tool, and the idea of religion is just plain stupid.

Pernicious wrote:I am saying that religion is generally a tool in war, even if only a in a small way.
Im not sure wat u mean lead in your last post. Wat wasnt wat?

America ALLWAYS utilises its religion in war. And how can it not, its fundamental.
Hell, MASH, tv series about war, wat do they fuckin have? A preist.

the 100 year war

So a bunch of christian royals battle it out amoungst eachother for over a hundred years for reasons other then religion?
I dont know much about it but how does that apply in this discussion?
Christians, muslums, wateva, going to war with their own kind for wateva reason its bound to hapen, we have allready established that wars are started for all kinds of reasons, doesnt really apply here or have anything to do with my point, how could christians use christianity as a tool wen they are fighting other christians, its like, the only circtumstance where it wouldnt hapen(probably).
In house fighting doesnt have anything to do with "religion causes conflict" argument, as we are talking outward conflict. Religious vs else.

Though royalty and religion has a long and strong relationship, so maybe somehow, someway, it did play a role in their bias towards the idea of an english x french king? Fucked if i know. 100 years of war, without religion coming up in some way though, seems unlikely. Maybe u just need to dig deeper?

I still have no idea wat ur trying to get across here unless u were just trying to find one instance in which religion has played no part in a war.
If thats the case, the fact that there are so few if any, still proves my point. Also i found it hard (2 minutes of googling i mean sheesh lols) to find deeper info on hundred years war.

It doesn't matter how many logical salient points you make, how many examples pile up that refute everything Pern is saying, it's useless. He plays games and tosses any ignorant poot your way.

I'm thinking he is an idiot. I don't want to think that, but it's the only conclusion.
You can play Whack a Mole with his nonsense or just vacate.
You can't debate senselessness.

The Argumentalizer wrote: I'm thinking he is an idiot. I don't want to think that, but it's the only conclusion.
You can play Whack a Mole with his nonsense or just vacate.
You can't debate senselessness.

Excuse me? You makin fun of whack a mole? I grew up on that game son, best not be making fun of MY game.

Pernicious wrote:So a bunch of christian royals battle it out amoungst eachother for over a hundred years for reasons other then religion?
I dont know much about it but how does that apply in this discussion?
Christians, muslums, wateva, going to war with their own kind for wateva reason its bound to hapen, we have allready established that wars are started for all kinds of reasons, doesnt really apply here or have anything to do with my point, how could christians use christianity as a tool wen they are fighting other christians, its like, the only circtumstance where it wouldnt hapen(probably).
In house fighting doesnt have anything to do with "religion causes conflict" argument, as we are talking outward conflict. Religious vs else.

Though royalty and religion has a long and strong relationship, so maybe somehow, someway, it did play a role in their bias towards the idea of an english x french king? Fucked if i know. 100 years of war, without religion coming up in some way though, seems unlikely. Maybe u just need to dig deeper?

I still have no idea wat ur trying to get across here unless u were just trying to find one instance in which religion has played no part in a war.
If thats the case, the fact that there are so few if any, still proves my point. Also i found it hard (2 minutes of googling i mean sheesh lols) to find deeper info on hundred years war.

pern: This is only a small part of a bigger story ofcourse, but religion, is allways there in the background at the very least.
if you cant get the point mate maybe you dont understand your own point that you put across as in religion being the basis for conflict...outward conflict wtf is that i dont need to dig deeper at all and im not trying to find out anything at all....i dont have to...on the other hand i feel you do. Sorry but youre a bit mixed up pern

My points were that religion is a tool and that it causes conflict.
Not that its the basis for every conflict and is the only reason ppl fight.
And yes, religion being a part of every country, it is allways there in every culture, allways. "in the background", and as a result is used as a tool at every oportunity.
What part am i mixed up about.

As for me needing to find something, i dont, i just smell bullshit, the sameway i smelt bullshit wen argumentaliser said that hitler was an evil atheist.

Pernicious wrote:My points were that religion is a tool and that it causes conflict.
Not that its the basis for every conflict and is the only reason ppl fight.
And yes, religion being a part of every country, it is allways there in every culture, allways. "in the background", and as a result is used as a tool at every oportunity.
What part am i mixed up about.

As for me needing to find something, i dont, i just smell bullshit, the sameway i smelt bullshit wen argumentaliser said that hitler was an evil atheist.

nah you do need to do your homework a little more extensively rather than making trite comments

lead wrote:

Pernicious wrote:My points were that religion is a tool and that it causes conflict.
Not that its the basis for every conflict and is the only reason ppl fight.
And yes, religion being a part of every country, it is allways there in every culture, allways. "in the background", and as a result is used as a tool at every oportunity.
What part am i mixed up about.

As for me needing to find something, i dont, i just smell bullshit, the sameway i smelt bullshit wen argumentaliser said that hitler was an evil atheist.

nah you do need to do your homework a little more extensively rather than making trite comments

come on lead, perns got joan of arc in the 100 years war!

lets see... she entered the fray around year 78? lasted maybe 1.5 years before her capture, trial and death?

that paints the entire war as a religious war by God...er, by Pern!

u know pern... clothing is in the background of every country and culture. in fact uniforms and flags and banners are pretty common in warfare. im pretty sure some gang bangers somewhere in the world have been murdered for wearing the wrong clothing. that some people somewhere in the world have been murdered by those coveting the brand of clothing someone is wearing or owns. that somewhere in the world burning a flag is a tool for inspiring hatred. therefore... i conclude textiles are a root cause of conflict and we should all just run around naked. this is my solution for world peace.

CellarDweller wrote:

lead wrote:

Pernicious wrote:My points were that religion is a tool and that it causes conflict.
Not that its the basis for every conflict and is the only reason ppl fight.
And yes, religion being a part of every country, it is allways there in every culture, allways. "in the background", and as a result is used as a tool at every oportunity.
What part am i mixed up about.

As for me needing to find something, i dont, i just smell bullshit, the sameway i smelt bullshit wen argumentaliser said that hitler was an evil atheist.

nah you do need to do your homework a little more extensively rather than making trite comments

come on lead, perns got joan of arc in the 100 years war!

lets see... she entered the fray around year 78? lasted maybe 1.5 years before her capture, trial and death?

that paints the entire war as a religious war by God...er, by Pern!

u know pern... clothing is in the background of every country and culture. in fact uniforms and flags and banners are pretty common in warfare. im pretty sure some gang bangers somewhere in the world have been murdered for wearing the wrong clothing. that some people somewhere in the world have been murdered by those coveting the brand of clothing someone is wearing or owns. that somewhere in the world burning a flag is a tool for inspiring hatred. therefore... i conclude textiles are a root cause of conflict and we should all just run around naked. this is my solution for world peace.

now that's a quality post m8! nice one

CellarDweller wrote: therefore... i conclude textiles are a root cause of conflict

comparing clothing to religion is very poor rhetoric. but i lol'd nonetheless.

[EYE] Valar wrote:

CellarDweller wrote: therefore... i conclude textiles are a root cause of conflict

comparing clothing to religion is very poor rhetoric. but i lol'd nonetheless.

i thought u got married. the wife doesn't shop? its a religion to some.

hahaha

CellarDweller wrote:

[EYE] Valar wrote:

CellarDweller wrote: therefore... i conclude textiles are a root cause of conflict

comparing clothing to religion is very poor rhetoric. but i lol'd nonetheless.

i thought u got married. the wife doesn't shop? its a religion to some.

Isnt that the truth.

CellarDweller wrote:come on lead, perns got joan of arc in the 100 years war!

lets see... she entered the fray around year 78? lasted maybe 1.5 years before her capture, trial and death?

that paints the entire war as a religious war by God...er, by Pern!

u know pern... clothing is in the background of every country and culture. in fact uniforms and flags and banners are pretty common in warfare. im pretty sure some gang bangers somewhere in the world have been murdered for wearing the wrong clothing. that some people somewhere in the world have been murdered by those coveting the brand of clothing someone is wearing or owns. that somewhere in the world burning a flag is a tool for inspiring hatred. therefore... i conclude textiles are a root cause of conflict and we should all just run around naked. this is my solution for world peace.

If u look closer, u will see that from the start my purpose was to troll the argumentaliser.
And once again i was saying that religion is a tool, not that it "paints the entire war as a religious war by God". But ill just assume ur playing around there considering how many times ive repeated that.
As for a solution to world peice, i would never presume to know or bother trying to figure that out. After all, i dont have a time machine and an army of super intelligent robots.