407 replies to this topic

[TehKiller]

Dauth, on 13 May 2009, 18:56, said:

I'm having a go at the organisation not the practitioners. Let me give you an example.

The organisation

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/7950671.stm

Quote

Several EU states have criticised Pope Benedict for saying that the use of condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids

http://aids.about.co...ts/a/africa.htm

Quote

In some African nations, 1 in 3 adults are infected with HIV.

Just how many more infections will the Catholic Church cause before is becomes a genocide and we do lose the population of Africa.

How about not going at anyone? You can have your views on religion as you want but couldn't you at least keep the insults to yourself?

Also this pope is a 'tard and as much as he's retarded he did got misquoted (he did said not having sex was a more effective way to deal with HIV than a condome...as much as I find this ridicilous I gotta agree it has some sense)

[SquigPie]

To be honest, when I read something like Chick Tracts (Fundementalist Protestantistic Propaganda, really good for unintensional lulz) I doesn't get upset and offended the same way as I do when somebody nerdrages over religion.

I feel a sting of sadness and laughs at the fact that I am on the same side as these guys....

To me, a world ruled over by a slavemaster God who throws 90% of the population into hell is far worse, than a world without cause created by coincidense.

But to quote an unknown brilliant religious guy, "We can all agree on this, when we die, And I turn out to be right, , then I'll be there to tell you "I told you so!", if you're right, then non of us will be be able to say anything at all..."

Edited by SquigPie, 13 May 2009 - 18:58.

[Nid]

Dauth, on 13 May 2009, 18:56, said:

Just how many more infections will the Catholic Church cause before is becomes a genocide and we do lose the population of Africa.

The practitioner
You go to Church, you marry another people, you decide not to use condoms (following scripture you have not had sex before marriage) it is unlikely that in Europe you will cause the spread of HIV/AIDS and even if for some reason one of you is positive (which I sincerely hope is not the case) then we have drugs (that are expensive but available in Europe) to prevent the children contracting the condition.

I will also mention that when I last checked (some time ago I admit) the Vatican had enough money to wipe out third world debt, gotta ask why such a benevolent organisation hasn't done so.

I want to agree with you, I really do. But the Pope is only the head of Catholic faith, not the World. The Catholic faith itself promotes sex only after marriage. The Catholic faith also promotes a single marriage to each person, and does not allow for divorce, meaning that the spread of AIDs and HIV should be minimal within the church. Obviously you can't rule out the spread through other methods such as Bloods mixing and what not. However this kind of spread is somewhat minimal in comparrison to the sexually transmitted cases of these diseases.

Now to say that the pope also has ruling control over all of the catholic faith would be absurd, I myself am a Catholic, and he would see me as a devil child, but the methods that the Church practices and promotes to avoid such issues are effective.

Edited by Nidmeister, 13 May 2009 - 19:52.

[Rayburn]

Quote

To me, a world ruled over by a slavemaster God who throws 90% of the population into hell is far worse, than a world without cause created by coincidense.

But to quote an unknown brilliant religious guy, "We can all agree on this, when we die, And I turn out to be right, , then I'll be there to tell you "I told you so!", if you're right, then non of us will be be able to say anything at all..."

I actually find the idea of life being fundamentally meaningless to be appealing. There is no definitive 'meaning of life'. In my opinion, everyone has to find his own 'meaning' or 'reason' by himself, for himself. It's not easy, though. If I'm a sinner just because I don't believe in this supposedly holy book, I dare the allmighty to send me to hell right away. I'd rather face punishment for being a free individual who believes in logic and common sense than being rewarded with redemption for living a life by the strict rules of an old, ambiguous book written by man. I don't need any metaphysical fairy dust sprinkled over my bleak and depressing reality to give my life a purpose.

Edited by Rayburn, 13 May 2009 - 19:21.

[SquigPie]

"The point of the pointless is to be pointless, which gives it a point!"
-Mathias Stensig Kristensen/Me

[Golan]

Huh, and people keep telling me that I'm using offensive subtext. I'd suggest a nice cup of tea for now...

Regardless, some points have been raised recently and IMO they still deserve being commented. First, the claim that organized religion would have brought about much more evil than atheism and the conclusion that this is a negative for religion: Hitler, Stalin, all have been mentioned by now and downplayed - I'd like to have you take a look at the time in which they did their crimes. Dauth, you of all people should know that sometimes not the overall sum is the deciding factor, but the frequency of an event - in this matter, atheist can easily compete with theist' crimes. So, let me ask you this question: if Atheists would have had the organization and time that churches/organized religion had to commit their crimes, do you think you could still raise the same point?
Yes, religion might be "bad" for what was done in its name - this in itself doesn't make atheism even the tiniest bit better though.

Second is the conclusion from the "freedom to say 2+2=5" argument. Yes, you are free to say this, everyone of us is. But just the same, everyone else is free to tell you how wrong, incomplete (if you take the "clever" approach of redefining stuff) and/or unrealistic this is.

Third, seeing that "organized religion" inevitably also includes those following it, calling it "biggest problem facing humanity" will necessarily imply an offense. Claiming this would not be the cause because of superior calmness skills can very well be considered an even more drastic offense.

Forth, claiming that the pope said that condoms would endanger the public health is a deliberately missleading distortion of facts. The statement "Just how many more infections will the Catholic Church cause before is becomes a genocide and we do lose the population of Africa." is rife with implied accusations that simply don't hold any foundation (or at least none of those the author claimed to supply).

Fifth, simply pumping money into third world states to clear them from their dept would do nothing. The level of corruption is far too high, the infrastructure is missing to build up on it is missing, the problems causing this debt would still exist and the only real result would be the catholic church going into flatline.

Edited by Golan, 13 May 2009 - 19:48.

[SquigPie]

One freaking post and Golan pwns us all...

Well, I'll continue the flamewar/intelligent discussion tommorow. Got a few things to take care of before I go to bed.

[nip]

@SquibPie:
If you wanna hear nice things attend sunday mass and listen to the nice guys who eat humble pie. Otherwise convince me with content and spare me your adolescent stutter. Animal farm seems an obligatory routine in everybodys life, I've seen the movie when I was in my teens and I have not found 'enlightenment' at the movies but on spot; in early 90's around the First Gulf War I was living a year in the so-called Holy Land and met the big Abrahamic Three and their alleged 'truths', something I do treat with scorn.

[SquigPie]

You seem to misunderstand something.

The "Pigs" are not stupid idiots without brain, they are the revolutionaries.

The ones who say "Let us destroy the tyranny and replace it with equality and freedom", However, it doesn't take long before their passionate speeches turns into "Long live the new tyranny!"

You can't simply remove organised religion and think that everyone can be free now, thats outright naive. It won't be long before something called "Organized Atheism" pops up and replaces it.

Because sadly, there just is alot of people who can't make their own philosophy about life, and have to follow somebody elses to function.

So yes, I believe that you are Pigs, you are honest people who seek to destroy the Missusers of Power.

But you can't handle the power that it takes to destroy such power.

[TehKiller]

Golan, on 13 May 2009, 19:45, said:

Huh, and people keep telling me that I'm using offensive subtext. I'd suggest a nice cup of tea for now...

Regardless, some points have been raised recently and IMO they still deserve being commented. First, the claim that organized religion would have brought about much more evil than atheism and the conclusion that this is a negative for religion: Hitler, Stalin, all have been mentioned by now and downplayed - I'd like to have you take a look at the time in which they did their crimes. Dauth, you of all people should know that sometimes not the overall sum is the deciding factor, but the frequency of an event - in this matter, atheist can easily compete with theist' crimes. So, let me ask you this question: if Atheists would have had the organization and time that churches/organized religion had to commit their crimes, do you think you could still raise the same point?
Yes, religion might be "bad" for what was done in its name - this in itself doesn't make atheism even the tiniest bit better though.

Second is the conclusion from the "freedom to say 2+2=5" argument. Yes, you are free to say this, everyone of us is. But just the same, everyone else is free to tell you how wrong, incomplete (if you take the "clever" approach of redefining stuff) and/or unrealistic this is.

Third, seeing that "organized religion" inevitably also includes those following it, calling it "biggest problem facing humanity" will necessarily imply an offense. Claiming this would not be the cause because of superior calmness skills can very well be considered an even more drastic offense.

Forth, claiming that the pope said that condoms would endanger the public health is a deliberately missleading distortion of facts. The statement "Just how many more infections will the Catholic Church cause before is becomes a genocide and we do lose the population of Africa." is rife with implied accusations that simply don't hold any foundation (or at least none of those the author claimed to supply).

Fifth, simply pumping money into third world states to clear them from their dept would do nothing. The level of corruption is far too high, the infrastructure is missing to build up on it is missing, the problems causing this debt would still exist and the only real result would be the catholic church going into flatline.

Man, it probably doesnt matter to you, but you just earned my respect

[Futschki]

Atheism doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is free to kill, free to rape etc.. coz there's no God and no one to punish for these actions. But let's look to the history of 'organized religion' they maybe wanted to get a world with no crimes and no criminals but had they succeeded? let's be honest, they weren't anywhere close to that, which means that their way wasn't perfect, I mean maybe the idea was correct but the way they're trying to teach it to people makes it look weird.

Well what I'm trying to say is that those 'organized religions' maybe has a concept of a perfect world, but do you think that telling people that they're born with a sin that they have to try and get that angry God to forgive them or else they're to be damned to hell is really a way of convincing them not to be criminals ?? do you think that telling people about a God that asks for your praise to give you something in return which in this case 'Heaven' is really persuading ? and what I found the most important reasons to have extremists is telling people about 'The Way' to God and any other way is not to be even considered and even the thought of it is a sin ...

Maybe all of that doesn't have much to do with the topic but well I'm trying to get a point to say that there are better ways to tell people about why they should believe so and what benefits there are other than limiting them to one option which would be the reason to a rise of some tyranny to the whole idea of The Only True Way to God ...

I come to the conclusion, Atheism and any kind of Religion is not THE reason that led to a world that still has crimes, wars and starvations, it's the people's perception that leads to that. what I'm trying to say is that there are the kind of people that agrees to whatever their priest say and goes with it and there are others who question quite everything and don't simply agree with what's being said to them, or even worse there're those who challenge that idea and try to show others that they can do something else. Which means we need a way to unite people under one flag which is whatever flag you think is great, which means the way to unite people is not to limiting them to one way but to allow them to discover what other options they have ...

Well you might say that some people might choose to be killers, thiefs etc... but if we go to the reason behind any crime we find that restrictions were what made someone do a crime. So by eliminating those restrictions whatever they are(that needs a topic on its own), we can maybe move to a better more peaceful world.

Edited by Abourror, 14 May 2009 - 20:40.

[Dauth]

A true non believer has no organisation, I do no need a support group of people to validate my views. There is no network of atheists, or there should not be one. What is the point of opposing an organisation that represses people only to form another one? It is contrary to sense and decency.

There are no leaders for the non religious, there are people who the media pay attention to, sure, Dawkings is one, Darwin was another. I have however got a juicy video of a Cardinal on the offensive, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbrfz1DIq9Q...player_embedded apparently I'm less than human? The freedom to not believe removes a portion of my humanity, how very amusing.

[SquigPie]

Once agian, you take one persons statement and say that thats the generally accepted religious view.

Then I guess that all people who like Britney Spears music/Every person named Chris is like this too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWSjUe0FyxQ...feature=related

Here comes another warning,

or not?

[Libains]

I don't recall Dauth saying that the Cardinal's views were symbolic of an entire religion, more the views of one person. You are oversimplifying things as usual, twisting them to your own means, and have posted one of the most shockingly awful videos I'm yet to witness. It's fair to say that everyone has their own views, and one such view is that of the Cardinal, which is rightly absurd. Another view of that is this ridiculous Britney fan, which is also totally absurd. Freedom of speech means everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it also means that you are entitled to criticise the opinions of other, which is what Dauth has done.

[Golan]

Dauth, on 15 May 2009, 17:53, said:

A true non believer has no organisation, I do no need a support group of people to validate my views. There is no network of atheists, or there should not be one. What is the point of opposing an organisation that represses people only to form another one? It is contrary to sense and decency.

So you feel that every organization a priori represses the people belonging to it and should thus be opposed (as otherwise, a non-repressing organization could be formed to oppose the initial one)? Furthermore, wouldn't this also apply to any kind of even slightly organized inter-human relationship, like nations, parties, clique of friends, "graduates of '99"and bowling clubs?

Dauth, on 15 May 2009, 17:53, said:

There are no leaders for the non religious, there are people who the media pay attention to, sure, Dawkings is one, Darwin was another. I have however got a juicy video of a Cardinal on the offensive, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbrfz1DIq9Q...player_embedded apparently I'm less than human? The freedom to not believe removes a portion of my humanity, how very amusing.

That's not what he said on the whole; your interpretation leaves out a large portion of his answer as well as the question he was asked. He said that the "lack of the search for a transcendent meaning (we call it God)" in the sense of fundamentally claiming that "there is no place (for it)" is what he feels makes a person disregard an integral part of humanity - inarguably, transcendence is culturally extremely important to humanity. Denying its importance and meaning, whether in the end one believes in it or not, will thus indeed limit your understanding of human nature.

AJ, on 15 May 2009, 19:18, said:

I don't recall Dauth saying that the Cardinal's views were symbolic of an entire religion, more the views of one person. You are oversimplifying things as usual, twisting them to your own means [...]

Are you sure he didn't? Look at what he wrote:

Dauth, on 15 May 2009, 17:53, said:

There are no leaders for the non religious[...], there are people who the media pay attention to, sure, Dawkings is one, Darwin was another. I have however got a juicy video of a Cardinal on the offensive

Now, either he didn't mean what his text implies, in which case his argument is invalid, as he neither addressed what was said but instead what was implied (by his interpretation no less). Or his argument is valid and he can be held responsible for what SquigPie feels offended by.

Edited by Golan, 15 May 2009 - 19:07.

[SquigPie]

AJ, on 15 May 2009, 20:18, said:

I don't recall Dauth saying that the Cardinal's views were symbolic of an entire religion, more the views of one person. You are oversimplifying things as usual, twisting them to your own means, and have posted one of the most shockingly awful videos I'm yet to witness. It's fair to say that everyone has their own views, and one such view is that of the Cardinal, which is rightly absurd. Another view of that is this ridiculous Britney fan, which is also totally absurd. Freedom of speech means everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it also means that you are entitled to criticise the opinions of other, which is what Dauth has done.

Everything can be divided by itself, in which case it gives 1. Thats just what I do, reduce it all to 1. Break up a long text and see the rotten line bellow. Its the way I see the world, and I am free to do so. (Do not read on if you feel offended by mad ramblings) And maybee (maybee) Atheists aren't human, cause what does it mean to be a human? Are we ducks in reality? Did Hitler ever live? The world is more than just codes and laws, its an endless source of mysteries and imagination. I prefer to view it that way, and I am free to do so. I do not defend my opinion to beat my opponent but merely to carry on an ageold conflict, the War of Words. so many choices on the rails, how about we all choose beyond the rails? Merely because alot of people can only see the rails, not the large lands beyond it. They only see the obvious, the straigtforward. Not the many choices out of fear of laughter and hatred.... (insert more mad ramblings here)

(end of mad ramblings)

Never seen Chris Crocker before (The Britnay fan)? That guy is famous, if horrifying, funny thing is that he is somehow right, Britney is a human, and she has been under alot of pressure, he just fails to deliver it in a un-lulzy way...

Edited by SquigPie, 15 May 2009 - 19:41.

[SolidSpartan117]

I am not baptized and neither do I believe in it, I believe in a higher power somthing else that made us what we are. to think that there isn't is insane. I believe that we are all equal that hell is not a fire pit in a relative sense but the earth we see today. I do not believe in church or the bible, I do not believe we have to go to church every week and pray every day for redemption. I believe as long as we repent of are sins and be the best we can we are guranteed into heaven. I also believe heaven is in 3 stages and depending on your judgment to go to either stage 1,2 or 3

[Chyros]

SolidSpartan117, on 16 May 2009, 19:29, said:

to think that there isn't is insane.

Why? I'm sincerely interested in why you think so, tbh.

[SquigPie]

Wondered about that myself, do you think that all atheists are insane, or do you just find it odd to think that there is no god.

[Z_mann]

One question that has really bothered me for a while is: can religion be separated from faith? If I am indeed faithful, must i also be involved with the Church of any kind? If i am faithful, must I be faithful by the Book?

As for religion, I cannot help but notice that it is somehow 'unpopular' on this forum - when this took off I expected the numbers to be quite different. It'd be interesting to have some kind of comparative study or whatnot...

Anyway the main problem of organized religion is the organized part. Wherever there is an organization, there is corruption, and "corruption is the sign of the fall!". The problem is, people tend to naturally follow some organizational patterns, and you cannot just go about changing human nature.

Thoughts?

P.S. My religious pattern is interesting: somewhat like a cosine curve - on the peak I'm all christian'd, on the bottom I'm a faithless world-hating misanthrope. Oscillates, like my mood, on regular intervals...

[nip]

Dauth, on 15 May 2009, 18:53, said:

[...]I have however got a juicy video of a Cardinal on the offensive, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbrfz1DIq9Q...player_embedded apparently I'm less than human? The freedom to not believe removes a portion of my humanity, how very amusing.

The Cardinal's transcendental rubbish carries a certain subliminal message. A not so fully human correlates with a 'better' human... what leads us directly to intolerance, hate and the like, all common religious views and practices.

Z_mann, on 17 May 2009, 13:57, said:

As for religion, I cannot help but notice that it is somehow 'unpopular' on this forum - when this took off I expected the numbers to be quite different. It'd be interesting to have some kind of comparative study or whatnot..

Just for the US...
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/...igion/flash.htm

[SquigPie]

But you're own intolerance against religion doesn't make you an intolerant, hatefull little....and the like...Or what?

Edited by SquigPie, 17 May 2009 - 17:04.

[Zero]

Staying out of this, a LITTLE too heated and controversial for m tastes.

[Ion Cannon!]

Don't post then? This isn't the place for pointless +1ing.

[Dauth]

Zero don't worry about heated debates, heated debates are good. I like it when people get angry, it means they've run out of normal responses.

Squig we've said nothing against Buddhism, the reason being they have done nothing to us. Other religions though, they are sometimes hostile to those of us who want to say no to a deity.