First  Prev  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
16753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 7/22/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:
He does not say that rape or slavery is alright, but gives instruction in regard to such subjects. There is a deeper meaning of understanding, and we are supposed to try to figure out this meaning, in the Holy Books. As the Koran says, "Do you not have a brain?"


And just for the record, an atheist, also known as someone with morals, can tell you point blank that slavery, rape, and other atrocities are never right or acceptable under any circumstances. Period. No ifs, ands, buts, nothing. For someone or some imaginary god to condone such practices under any conditions means that person or being has zero moral and thus unworthy of respect.

13031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/22/13
There is a reason why religion still exists in the world today, since the beginning of human civilization.
It is a source of comfort for some people. It is radicalism and bigotry (in all forms) that is stupid,
and that needs to be eliminated.
The thought that there is something bigger than you in the universe help keep people in track, ethically and morally,
whether that be a god, or faith in other human beings.
There are people that are smarter than you in the universe, some of those people believe, and some don't.
Do not judge others harshly, and do not get lost in your own hubris. These things are taught by religion as well,
and if you are too smart for religion, you are implying that you don't need religion to practice these things.
If you are not, well then, perhaps you do need a bigger power in your life, to teach you how to become a better person.

I never go on forums but this discussion keeps popping up I just had to read it eventually. It sounds like a lot of people are getting offended and I just wanted to add a little something for you guys to chew on.
12222 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 7/22/13
Is this bait?
19084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/22/13

bensonc120 wrote:


LOL that was a fast change in comparisons- quickly comparing the god/human relations from mother/child to swatting gnats wow! As for rape or slavery I would strongly recommend you go back and re-read the bible then get back to me. The meaning of the bible and religion is not that deep and not hard to figure out. If you are having trouble, then maybe the question of "Do you not have a brain?" is one you should be asking yourself.

By the way, 9 milion children die every year before the age of 5 to a rate of 17 per minute. To paraphrase Sam Harris, any god who allows millions of innocent children to suffer and die and their parents to grieve either is incapable of helping or doesn't care to help. I hope your poor choice of mother/child punishment metaphor will end at this moment, the comparison is beyond offensive. Same with the gnats comparison.


The meaning of, "Do you not have a brain." is used as a way of asking you to think for yourself. The meaning of the Bible seems and appears to be easy to understand, appealing to the masses, but there is a deeper meaning, meant for those willing and meaning to look at said meanings. You are right, it is beyond offensive. The greatest of human love compared to the Love of Heaven, impossible to understand as we know it. We are to humble ourselves to the LORD, for we are as nothing to him. As for the wonderful children, most of said children die in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, both with poor conditions. The pain and suffering they would face had they survived would probably have been much worse, and longer. The LORD allows for us to have free will, and make our decisions. While it is a sad event indeed, the pure shall be able to see the LORD. While it may seem unfair to our perspective their lives are redeemed in the afterlife. However, since it is a shame they didn't get to live out their lives, we, as a race, should try to help improve the conditions in such areas, instead of being satisfied by our leisurely, first-world problems.
19084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/22/13

bensonc120 wrote:


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:
He does not say that rape or slavery is alright, but gives instruction in regard to such subjects. There is a deeper meaning of understanding, and we are supposed to try to figure out this meaning, in the Holy Books. As the Koran says, "Do you not have a brain?"


And just for the record, an atheist, also known as someone with morals, can tell you point blank that slavery, rape, and other atrocities are never right or acceptable under any circumstances. Period. No ifs, ands, buts, nothing. For someone or some imaginary god to condone such practices under any conditions means that person or being has zero moral and thus unworthy of respect.



Firstly, you cannot generalize the morals of all the believers of a certain belief, or disbelief. This is prejudice. After rereading the Bible verses regarding slavery and rape, as you recommended, I noticed there is no passage that says slavery is alright. On the contrary, I found that, repeatedly, it gave punishments for those who rape. In no way is this possibly good. Generally, as we think of it, slavery is indeed wrong. Imagine if you are back in the day, and a person with no job and no luck on any applications appear, and you kindly give said person room, with no charge. The one you took in wants to work, but still can find no job. You are running low on money, on account of having to pay for an extra person. So, instead of paying for repair of your utilities, which are not working, you let him fix it. He then gradually grows on to do things for you around your household. Is this wrong? Imagine a similar situation, but you own a farm, and one of your family members, who work with you, have grown too old or ill to work. You took in this jobless man, and are running out of monetary backings. He wants to work, and you set it up where he can tend to the fields. If you didn't take him in, but let him out homeless, into a less civilized world. Is this completely wrong?
16753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 7/22/13

minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

Firstly, you cannot generalize the morals of all the believers of a certain belief, or disbelief. This is prejudice. After rereading the Bible verses regarding slavery and rape, as you recommended, I noticed there is no passage that says slavery is alright. On the contrary, I found that, repeatedly, it gave punishments for those who rape. In no way is this possibly good. Generally, as we think of it, slavery is indeed wrong. Imagine if you are back in the day, and a person with no job and no luck on any applications appear, and you kindly give said person room, with no charge. The one you took in wants to work, but still can find no job. You are running low on money, on account of having to pay for an extra person. So, instead of paying for repair of your utilities, which are not working, you let him fix it. He then gradually grows on to do things for you around your household. Is this wrong? Imagine a similar situation, but you own a farm, and one of your family members, who work with you, have grown too old or ill to work. You took in this jobless man, and are running out of monetary backings. He wants to work, and you set it up where he can tend to the fields. If you didn't take him in, but let him out homeless, into a less civilized world. Is this completely wrong?


Actually I agree with you 100%. To me, the bible is a product of the times it was written in. The stories were written with a purpose to teach people the accepted morals of that time, some of which have continued to stay relevant after thousands of years and some of which, as people have become more progressed, have become outdated. To me it's a testament to the authors that even a little bit of the wisdom and lessons have stayed relevant. I've talked to pastors who share this view. My biggest issue is when people take the bible are the literal truth and misrepresent the stories out of context, and as literal historical truths.
19084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/22/13

bensonc120 wrote:


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:

Firstly, you cannot generalize the morals of all the believers of a certain belief, or disbelief. This is prejudice. After rereading the Bible verses regarding slavery and rape, as you recommended, I noticed there is no passage that says slavery is alright. On the contrary, I found that, repeatedly, it gave punishments for those who rape. In no way is this possibly good. Generally, as we think of it, slavery is indeed wrong. Imagine if you are back in the day, and a person with no job and no luck on any applications appear, and you kindly give said person room, with no charge. The one you took in wants to work, but still can find no job. You are running low on money, on account of having to pay for an extra person. So, instead of paying for repair of your utilities, which are not working, you let him fix it. He then gradually grows on to do things for you around your household. Is this wrong? Imagine a similar situation, but you own a farm, and one of your family members, who work with you, have grown too old or ill to work. You took in this jobless man, and are running out of monetary backings. He wants to work, and you set it up where he can tend to the fields. If you didn't take him in, but let him out homeless, into a less civilized world. Is this completely wrong?


Actually I agree with you 100%. To me, the bible is a product of the times it was written in. The stories were written with a purpose to teach people the accepted morals of that time, some of which have continued to stay relevant after thousands of years and some of which, as people have become more progressed, have become outdated. To me it's a testament to the authors that even a little bit of the wisdom and lessons have stayed relevant. I've talked to pastors who share this view. My biggest issue is when people take the bible are the literal truth and misrepresent the stories out of context, and as literal historical truths.


While a great deal of the Bible is not set in any particular time and place, but attesting to certain activities. Then there is a large portion attesting to the wisdom of the LORD through his prophets, or the people, depending upon belief. Then there is a portion which attests to certain historical events, of which some have been proven to be most likely true. The Koran is believed to be a testament of the LORD to Mohammed, giving us many beautiful Arabic verses and scientific facts and religious acts we should take, but the hard restrictions and harshness started appearing around Medina, after which, Mohammed fell ill and passed away.
Bavalt 
13516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/22/13


Actually, nanikore doesn't seem to imply anything like that. When you look at science, this is a pretty good descriptor of how it's done. Say that every time you fart in the playoffs, Dwight Howard misses a freethrow. You notice this phenomenon. The next step, as mentioned in the outline, is to test it. It needs to be confirmed by experimentation. If you try it in a number of different circumstances, many times over, and he misses a freethrow every single time you fart, then you've discovered a correlation. This example is of course ridiculous, but if you took it outside of the context of our current scientific model, it wouldn't be. It's only ridiculous in light of what we know already. If, for example, the fact of the matter was that every time you farted in the playoffs, Dwight Howard missed a freethrow, then that would be a scientifically observable fact. From there, science would go on to explore in greater detail the pieces at work, describe the intricacies, and tie it in with other discoveries. Science has to accomodate this, because it's science's nature. If this correlation actually did exist, it would be scientific, and ignoring it because it sounds silly or unlikely would be unscientific.

However, at no point in this process is the question of 'why' even considered, because science does not deal with 'why'. Science answers 'how', in an extremely precise, meticulous, and useful way, but it can never say why.

The fact is that science can never prove anything one hundred percent. Why? Because it uses inductive reasoning, based on evidence. Even ignoring the possibility that the human senses may be severely lacking in perceiving the actual reality of the universe, there's still the ever-present, and very basic problem that we might have simply not seen something yet. Every scientific theory is at the mercy of reality: if, for example, all swans are white, and that's a scientific fact, then what happens when you see a black swan? Your science is refuted, and you need to go back and integrate this new data. Likewise, what if some new fragment of evidence comes up that refutes one of the major scientific laws? Then that law will have to be revised as well. That's a perfectly natural and accepted part of the scientific model. The fact is that we've only seen what we've seen. We can never be sure if there's evidence out there to refute something. If after a billion billion times, p > h, there's still the possibility that p will happen, and h won't. It's infinitesimally unlikely, but it's there. Science by its nature has to choose a point where it says "good enough" and assumes its correctness. Without this assertion, science would not have been able to make all the progress it has over the years.

Science has done innumerable miraculous things for our species, and will almost definitely continue to do so, but just because something works does not make it correct, simply practical. Inductive reasoning can never be one hundred percent, because we will never experience everything there is to experience.

It could, likewise, be argued that metaphysics, which is a core part of most religions, and in its purest forms, attempts to forego inductive reasoning entirely and use only deductive reasoning, is equally flawed. Logic is the one thing that is inherently true, but logic must have premises, which, when it comes down to it, we are unable to assert with our limited perception. Religion is the desire for some higher authority, that does actually understand the 'why', to give us some premises to work with. It is, essentialy, wishful thinking on our parts, that stems from curiosity just as science does, and still exists today because science, for all its usefulness, is inadequate in its failure to tell us 'why'. Someone who has chosen a religion has chosen a set of premises to consider as truth, and ideally, looks at the world in a logically deductive manner based on those 'truths'.

Science and religion are not enemies, even though scientists and religious people often are. They are both efforts to broaden our understanding. Science has proven itself to be vastly more useful than religion has, so much so that many people take science's discoveries as premises themselves, effectively making science their religion, which like any religion, is a-okay. Again like any religion, the religion of science argues with other religions, because it uses different premises than they do, and will thus draw different conclusions. The treatment of science as a religion is what makes these arguments possible in the first place, because religion belongs to the realm of deduction, and pure science to the realm of induction. People who say 'science, ergo no religion' are, as a necessary part of their thought process, treating science as a religion. In its pure form, science has absolutely nothing to do with religion other than both being founded on humanity's greatest asset: it's thirst for knowledge.

Basically, to argue (seriously) against a religion is to hold to a different religion. Otherwise, what are you doing there? Concepts like the seperation of church and state are around because, when you look at it, science has done far more for us than religion ever has, and thus, it's more pragmatic to go with induction over deduction. Science is a continuous, endless road, whereas metaphysics is a single dot, far far away at the end of everything, with no route in sight. If the time ever comes when we finally have a way of drawing premises that we can know to be absolutely true, science will suddenly be obsolete. We'll be done, know everything, and probably form some kind of awesome utopia (or embrace our inevitable extinction with dignity, whichever it turns out to be). But there's no way to make progress with metaphysics, and no way of knowing how we'll come across that one piece of knowledge we need to make it happen. Pragmatists like science, because even though it helps us in a limited way, it helps us now, whereas metaphysics will help us completely and totally... some time in the future... maybe. It just doesn't sound like a safe bet, basically.

Thus, a scientist may argue that a religious person is wasting their time, and that's perfectly fine, but they may never argue that a religious person is wrong without being religious themselves. It's kind of hipster, really, to say that your way of thinking is so dramatically opposed to every other way of thinking that those ways have no choice but to consider our way their natural and greatest enemy. The religion of science is self-important like that, because it's got all this useful stuff to back it up. It's basically saying something like "I've helped you out so much in the past, it's only fair that you take my side." and using all of this support that it's gained from an irrelevant issue to make the ridiculous claim that it, the almighty triangle, is not a shape, but in fact the opposite of all shapes.

Damn, I had fun writing this. Makes me wanna go back to school. >_> Anyway, to be clear, if my argument didn't do so already, I'm not religious, though I do respect those who are. I'm also not particularly scientific, though I am extremely grateful to those who are. My personal belief is that we're incapable of truly knowing anything, but that since trying is what makes life awesome, we should keep at our utterly pointless goal so that we can have fun and fulfilling lives. I'm just not going to judge anyone on the way they go about it, unless they make people unhappy in the process.
Anrita 
14023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Online
Posted 7/22/13
Actually, according to original Christian teachings, disbelief in God didn't mean you'd get sent to hell. That was invented as a scare tactic centuries later after the Christian church had begun to splinter. Can you honestly imagine Jesus condemning people to eternal suffering simply for having a different worldview? It would never happen. Sadly, most Christians accept what their churches tell them as God's truth, when at this point, it's mostly just BS they made up.

This seems to be the pattern for all religions. Look at Buddhism, for example. It's core teachings are very sensible, though frankly, they're so vague that their usefulness is questionable. However, if you look at how Buddhism branched over time and the random nonsensical doctrines that were added to the different branches over time, it gets to be quite ridiculous.
68161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / East of West
Online
Posted 7/22/13
I'm a Christian because Jesus loves me and I want to love Him back.

Jn 17Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.
4679 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/22/13
"That's because definition 1 and 2 have nothing to do with religion, they are referring to alternate definitions of this word. That is a very very simple concept why can't you understand that?"

...Which is exactly why I am faithful yet not religious. I subscribe to the Christian faith and not a supposed "Christian religion".

Jesus was a threat to religion. He was killed for it, and now He lives to show that religion is still not the Way.

In religion, you have to do this and that in order to obtain something. In faith, such is not the case. Faith is the opposite of religion; You do things in faith because you already GOT something.
4679 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/22/13

Just stop right here. If this is your idea of science then you really need to educate yourself further. No good scientist follow this flawed logic, ever. Correlation does not mean causation. For example, every time I fart in the playoffs Dwight Howard misses a freethrow. A--->B? Umm no, and I hope this is self-explanatory.


You really need to slow down when it comes to reading. I was explaining what science does and does not do, and not what scientists believe. Scientists know full well what medical tests entail and do not entail. Scientists need no such reminders, but whoever drew those two diagrams side by side might.
4679 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/22/13

Actually, nanikore doesn't seem to imply anything like that. When you look at science, this is a pretty good descriptor of how it's done.


Thank you.

Science and the supernatural belong in separate domains of discussion, which is why I find both sides of "Science versus religion debate" (itself a rather questionable classification) wrong to even engage in such a non-debate. Neither side of the non-debates seem to realize what they're doing. If they do realize, they would save themselves a whole lot of breath.
19084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 7/23/13

shadorai wrote:

i'm not religious because i just think religion is ridiculous and unrealistic. i am a WAY more scientific kind of guy. science just makes so much more sense.
this is an example of a dumbass thing that happens with me and religious people ALL THE F**KIN' TIME= someone asks me about my religion, (usually christians, because that's all there really is around here) and i say, "oh. i'm atheist. i just think religion is kinda silly." and then the christian says, "dude! but if you don't believe in god, you'll go to hell!" and i say, "how am i going to hell if i don't even believe in religion?" and then they or i usually walk away.

although i do find some religions as interesting stories.


Their assertions are implying that they consider themselves higher than humans, so as to judge and know the Almighty God's Will. Also, the Bible pretty much says that those judged as good enough will be brought back into the New Earth, and the Hell it talks about seems to be talking about being dead. Saying that a nonbeliever is going to Hell is basically saying "You are going to go exactly where you think you are!" which is a ridiculous thing to say.
44361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 7/23/13

Vandrian wrote:

I'm a Christian because Jesus loves me and I want to love Him back.

Jn 17Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.
Personally I think Jesus doesn't love you. Loves everyone else, 'cept you. Sorry. I love you though, is that good enough?

First  Prev  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.