|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted November 20, 2009 05:13 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 17:14, 20 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Although athesists love to say religion is a mental disorder, it makes no sense to say that most of the world's population has a mental disorder. Atheists make up a very small percentage of the world's population so one can reasonably conclude it is atheism that is a mental disorder.
I've already stated it several times Elodin, but you still try very hard to ignore it: Only because MANY people are doing the same thing, doesn't mean it is GOOD what they are doing!
Example: SMOKING!
And btw...not everyone who goes to church every sunday is a believer..
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 22, 2009 10:10 AM |
|
|
the corrected term in a time like this is
Angelito wins
Threadtality!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2009 10:25 AM |
|
|
I don't have a problem with Dawkins. He may call me whatever he wants - I guess he's a type of person that will never "hear the music of the spheres", no matter what. Not my job to criticize him - reason alone is nice, but it doesn't work when it comes to aesthetics, faith and many other feelings, something Dawkins tends to omit.
But it's not my problem - I once wondered why did he went on a crusade to persuade people there is no God - I don't care right now. Elodin, I suggest you the same, even though you will probably never listen. Let it go. Some things you should just ignore and not fight back.
Yes, I read Dawkins' book. I don't like his arguments. At all. They didn't convince me. It's a well written book, but ultimately brings the same amount of bull that every other book trying to convince people that God does/ does not exist. At least it's a better class of arguments than zeitgeist, which is complete BS, but it's still imho a waste of time.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted November 22, 2009 10:06 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
After that amazingly valuable post by Doomforge I would like to make a short addendum. I am sorry to insist on this same subject, but I am really curious about this particular matter. I consider the following to be very important questions for I really wish to understand what lies behind that avatar with a scroll and a medal.
When people say things such as:
Atheists are the scum of the world, doing their best to spread hatred with their vile tongues and spam deceitful ideas to prevent everyone's salvation.... (etc)
I normally dont give a damn. And the reason behind it all is that I am a hardcore atheist with deep social concerns, very active within my possibilities to help people, who dedicate every month around 10% of my meager income to local NGOs, and so on. All my atheist friends are at least as active as me and also deeply involved in making this world a better place. So when I hear those words, or any other like those I basically don't feel any hurt, for I know they do not match.
So my questions are: why would you feel any hurt if someone you despise (such as Dawkings) creaticizes religion? What do you feel when you read something you consider "religion bashing"? What exactly motivates you to react and keep this spartan struggle to make your points?
(Please, understand I do not mean those quetions ironically, I am just authenticaly curious)
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 10:08 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:11, 23 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
After that amazingly valuable post by Doomforge I would like to make a short addendum. I am sorry to insist on this same subject, but I am really curious about this particular matter. I consider the following to be very important questions for I really wish to understand what lies behind that avatar with a scroll and a medal.
When people say things such as:
Atheists are the scum of the world, doing their best to spread hatred with their vile tongues and spam deceitful ideas to prevent everyone's salvation.... (etc)
I don't hear people saying such things.
I do hear the "new atheism" evangelists [Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennette and their ilk] saying all sorts of vile things about Christians in particular and religion in general.
Quote:
So my questions are: why would you feel any hurt if someone you despise (such as Dawkings) creaticizes religion? What do you feel when you read something you consider "religion bashing"? What exactly motivates you to react and keep this spartan struggle to make your points?
It does not hurt my feelings for someone to lie about me. But I am inclined to "set the record straight" when someone starts bashing Christianity or religion in general.
Why exactly should I not counter the statement that religious people are delusional and other such nonsense? Or to correct lies that are told about what the Bible teaches for example?
I would think that everyone should be free to express their opinions. And that everyone is free to have their statements challenged. Even atheists.
When I initially joined the board I only posted in game related topics. After I started reading threads in the OSM I saw some atheists were telling a number of lies about relgious people and decided to begin address the falsehoods.
I am under no illusion that a hardcore anti-theist is likely to change his mind or feelings about religion. However, some people do eventually overcome their prejudices they have against other people.
I'm not particularly inclined to shut up and hide in a closet while the anti-religion crowd is shouting from the rooftops.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
|
That's when you start fighting?
Christianity does need more characters like that. Kids definitively would prefer to identify with a badass warrior priest rather than a reserved and abrupt old man telling them they will burn in hell for premarital sex. 
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 12:06 PM |
|
|
I absolutely hate quoting, but the post addressed to me was way to big to cover a fraction of it without it. So..here goes. Also, I am only responding due to a HCM from Jolly asking for a response.. just want that on the record. I answered as best I could, then snipped the quotes. If you are confused to which point in the post my answer is, I will help you out (left a few in for better clarity)
No comparing teaching only about hell and teaching about gravity would however. Remember, not all religions have a hell, and some do not even have anything similar. My point is, however, that all learning is repetition, stated as absolute fact. Honestly, answer my question, if a child would say "Ben Franklin was a Martian who won the battle of Waterloo" how would the be received? Exactly. If they would answer a math test question that 1+1 = Lotion .. are you saying that this would be accepted? Exactly.
No, they can not question what is given them in class. That is the point. You are confusing what I am saying. Never did I say that the 'truth' was not taught. Just that a Stop Sign is ALWAYS a Stop Sign, and anybody who calls it a Corvette is going to be consider crazy or worse. Again, there IS no questioning allowed. Again, it is not neccessarily a BAD thing either.
Quote:
I suppose you have to go a long way to explain the connection between the first two and the last sentence here. Moreover I have no idea where your knowledge comes from what people do for the most part. And even if you are right, it's just not that relevant. People actually do, for the most part, not write books about how bad the Jews are and that you have to do something about them, found a party, try a coup, get jailed, come back, are elected to chancellorship and go on to happily destroy a big part of the world either. Still, coming to think about it...
Absolutely fail to see any relivence or connection. Help me out?
Quote:
That's a good one. Duly laughed about.
You are free to your opinion. I know my stance, glad you can read my mind and know me better then I know myself however.
Quote:
You should decide: are you neutral now or way too indoctrinated like Elodin and myself? In any case, the interesting and somewhat perplexing thing is, that we actually agree about what I marked in Italics.
I am way to indoctrinated in my belief that there is good and bad in religion. That people are to blame, not their belief, and that people are entitled to their own opinion. Make of that what you will, could care less.
The same can be said of anything. Including politics. People can be 'fanatical' about anything. Taking anything way to far. Again, my limited comprehension seems to be failing me. I fail to see a valid point?
And science is a tool. So you would blame science for the deaths caused by the H-Bomb? Or Weapons? Or ...?
Yes, it is a FAIR compairison (spelling). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Of course, the double standard..I forgot. Anybody can take an idea and twist it for their own gain or use. Be it religion, or atomic energy. It is not the idea that is bad, but the people BEHIND the 'bad' use of the idea. The twisting of it to harm others. So yes, it is the PEOPLE, not the idea.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 12:33 PM |
|
|
*Shrugs* Why did you bother with an answer when you don't address points anyway? Maybe this:
Quote:
Anybody can take an idea and twist it for their own gain or use. Be it religion, or atomic energy. It is not the idea that is bad, but the people BEHIND the 'bad' use of the idea. The twisting of it to harm others. So yes, it is the PEOPLE, not the idea.
That wasn't the point, and it should be obvious. The point is, that there are obviously bad ideas, and in that case it's not the people BUT the idea. I think we agree up to this point. So your whole point is - and this is a basic assumption, and note that I wrote that, so I wonder why you have to repeat that here - that the idea behind religion is a GOOD one (if it wasn't, well).
But that's exactly the question. IS IT REALLY a good one? That's why I sketched a few thoughts about it, and I think you can overdo something. Demanding something UNREASONABLE may have harsh consequences, not the least of which is guilt, which is a charecteristic of Christian belief - feeling guilty because of failure to meet the goals: be pure and so on, don't have unclean thoughts.
Think about it: how often do we see movies or read books about the theme that a father or a mother is simply EXPECTING too much of their children and the children break because they cannot meet the expectations. Is the idealized "good" idea behind Christianity, to love everyone no matter what really a GOOD one. Wouldn't it have been a better one to TRY NOT TO HATE others?
That was the point of that part. As with all ideas you have to wonder whether an idea is really that great, especially when it's ABSOLUTE ideas.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 12:59 PM |
|
|
I will try to be clearer, but as always my ability to communicate my thoughts is a bit lacking.
One problem I see is a missing link. The fact that while you should strive to improve yourself according to christianity, only the 'zealots' (and not the religion itself) think you should be 'perfect'. It says right in there. "All will fall short of the glory of god." Which means it expects you to be human. That is what 'forgiveness' is for. ((this particular post is not complete, and will be so when I can later today)).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 01:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Demanding something UNREASONABLE may have harsh consequences, not the least of which is guilt, which is a charecteristic of Christian belief - feeling guilty because of failure to meet the goals: be pure and so on, don't have unclean thoughts.
Hogwash. You either don't know what the Bible teachs or you are deliberately lying. I already addressed your false claim of this on page 22.
Christianity teaches that when God forgives us, he no longer even remembers our sins. There is no reason to feel guilty unless you are living in sin. God wants us to draw near to him, not to run away. He wants to be our Father. He has lived a human life in Jesus and knows the weakness of humanity.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Remember the parable of the prodigal son? He came to his senses, went back to his father (who was standing on the road looking for him.) The father ran down the road to meet him when he saw him coming home and threw his arms around him and kissed him. The son began his "I'm sorry" speech and the father did not even let him finish before telling his servants to bring out new clothing and jewelry and to prepare a big party.
So your statements were totally false.
I've already quoted the studies where it is religion that is good for a person and atheism that leads to poorer mental health, more suicide, and less helping of of others (overall.)
Quote:
Think about it: how often do we see movies or read books about the theme that a father or a mother is simply EXPECTING too much of their children and the children break because they cannot meet the expectations.
Lol!!!!!!!!! Are you really trying to learn about life and God from Hollywood?
Yes, God has high goals for us. But the Bible also says that "remembers our fram that we are but dust." He understands what it is like to be a human being. He made us and knows everything about human beings. And in Jesus he lived a human life.
Quote:
Is the idealized "good" idea behind Christianity, to love everyone no matter what really a GOOD one. Wouldn't it have been a better one to TRY NOT TO HATE others?
Yes, loving everyone should be the goal of every person. The world would be a much better place if everyone loved one another. It is not enough to just not hate others. "Not hating" does not inspire a person to help others. Love does.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2009 01:41 PM |
|
|
Just for clarification, Mytical, before you add to your post.
Quote:
Yes, loving everyone should be the goal of every person. The world would be a much better place if everyone loved one another. It is not enough to just not hate others. "Not hating" does not inspire a person to help others. Love does.
Is that Elodin's private interpretation (i.e. people hijacking the belief for their interpretation) or is that indeed a central mesage of Christianity?
Whatever you think about that - don't you think that the combination of the words SHOULD and LOVE is a rather strange and even paradoxical one? What does that make love? Something persons can bring themselves to feel? Is that it? Is that really such a good idea?
Even a much more unproblemetic "always be honest" isn't without pitfalls and needs further clarification. Does "being honest" involve more than just telling no lie and are there no situations where honesty may have a bad effect?
The problem seems to be - I addressed that in that post as well - that it seems to be very difficult (cautiously phrased) to find a POSITIVE motto; it's easier to come up with negative ones: DON'T... and even they have their drawbacks.
So that leaves as a bottom line the question: is the central idea of Christianity REALLY such a flawless idea? It would have to be, because if it WASN'T, if it had flaws, it was clear that the idea was to blame alright, because as a religious idea it claims to be absolute.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 06:25 AM |
|
|
Jolly, again I am having understanding your post. Can somebody help me in that respect?
Now in regard to love, let me explain that loving somebody does not neccessarily mean liking, agreeing with, or anything. I love the members of my family, but there are some I can not stand. IE it means you can care for a person, but not their ways. It also does not mean you should let them walk (or run) over you either. Keep in mind I won't speak for Elodin as my understanding of Christianity is vastly different from his.
Anyhow, I believe we were discussing the 'rules', 'punishment', and how for some reason they are so horrible and 'wrong'. Let me ask a simple question. Do you think there should be rules, and punishment for breaking them? If so (which I am sure is the case), do you think ignorence is a valid excuse for not being subject to those rules?
For instance. Some men who have lived secluded from society all of their life (and thus don't have any laws against rape, theft, etc) somehow make it to where you live. They rape one of your loved ones, kill them, destroy your home and other possessions. Do you just shrug and say "Well they didn't know no better, lets just forget it?" I would guess the answer is no. ((Before it is brought up, I realise that the odds of this are astronomical. Not that this statement will matter, just getting it out there.))
Lets look at some of our current rules, and their current punishment. Murder often carries a 'life without possibility of perole' sentence. Of course there is 'mitigating circumstance', but that can get rather complicated. The point is, we have some rather harsh sentences for breaking our rules. Is it really a suprise that a being who is 'purer' then us has stiffer punishments?
Even with those stiffer punishments, however, he is a lenient judge. If they are honestly 'sorry', and mean it, he will let them not have the harsh sentence. It helps that he can read their mind and knows if they are sincere or not however.
Now you brought up a subject that is near and dear to my own heart, homosexuality and how it is a sin. How a person can be sentenced to eternal suffering because they love the wrong way according to the 'rules'. Well of course I see things different then a christian like Elodin (though not different then some christians), but let me try to clarify things from the 'more zealous' (on that note) christians perspective.
All sex outside of marriage is a 'sin'. That is craving of the flesh. However, you will note that he put a loophole in that law also. They get married it is all good. I won't get into the fact that it specifies between a man and a woman while not specifying age or even species ( ). So technically nowhere in the bible does it say that a man couldn't marry an infant and .. well...(Let that disturbing thought seep into your head). It is society that has put an age limit.
Yet homosexuals are not suppose to marry, thus no matter what they are living in sin. Do I think that right? No. I can not conceive of such a hypocritical divine being. It is beyond my ability to do so. So that is one issue I can not touch, since my mind is not able to conceive of a answer to such. Does that make Christianity inheirently evil? No. Maybe...misguided..but not evil.
Like I said though, even in that rule they put a loophole. Get married, it is no longer a sin. Simple.
Now of course here comes the "Then why does god have people have the thoughts, etc etc". Again, God does not put the thoughts in peoples head, nor does he create sin. There are TWO different beings at war for your soul, don't forget. God lets you choose between the two. You have the ability to ask for forgiveness for 'impure' thoughts. If you choose to do it or not is your own choice.
Next is the 'But what about those who never hear about it, they are punished even though they don't know better?" I will point back to the "Ignorence of the law is no excuse" but I will go further. There is yet another 'loophole'. "Where there is but little, little is required." Just like 'mentally challenged' people I believe strongly that special consideration is taken for that particular circumstance. They may still be punished for crimes (not the 'mentally challenged' but the ones who COULD know better but don't), but remember my understanding of things is vastly different from somebody like Elodin's. We don't agree on a LOT, like that punishment is forever.
So yes, a lot is expected from humans, but 'God' gives 'outs'. He gives people a chance..if they take it or not is up to them. So do I think religion is unreasonable or too strict? No. Do I think that there are some PEOPLE who make it unreasonable and too strict? Absolutely. Because they think they understand God. Hey, I will be the first to say I don't understand God. My thoughts on the subject could be so far off the mark that it has went past pathetic.
Seperate the belief from the 'believers', because they are HUMAN and capable of making mistakes. Like the mistake of EGO that says "My interpretation and understanding is the only right one, I have a special understanding of what GOD wants.".
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 07:46 AM |
|
|
I wasn't talking about puinishment - we can talk about it, but I wasn't.
Now, if you talk about what God says - there is no discussion. He says what he says, and "loopholes" are not what this is all about. "Loopholes", that sounds like someone will tell a joke about a Jewish solicitor - and guess why the have so good ones. 
So your point is somehow, that even though the Bible is very strict about rules, it's humans who interpret them (too strict). This is obviously not correct, and you give up when it comes to homosexuality. No amount of loopholes and interpretations can cover that, so you negate your own point. It's god who's pretty strict here, not the humans.
But I wasn't into punishment - I was into the love thing, because I wanted to discuss whether the command to love everyone, even your enemies, is a good idea or not, because if it's not the idea is to blame. Note that it's enough here when it's not a perfect idea for the idea to be flawed.
For this issue you say:
Quote:
Now in regard to love, let me explain that loving somebody does not neccessarily mean liking, agreeing with, or anything.[/quote}
That's certainly a strange statement. Can you love someone you don't like? That seems to depend on how love is defiined, and here quite obviously the first flaw of the idea is already obvious because the Bible doesn't define "love". You go on giving an example to illustrate hat kind of love you mean:
Quote:
I love the members of my family, but there are some I can not stand. IE it means you can care for a person, but not their ways. It also does not mean you should let them walk (or run) over you either.
You "love" the members of the familiy, even those you don't like, for specific reasons, right? Because you know them, because you've been raised with them and raised to love them - but those you don't like, would you love them as well, if they were strangers to you? Like the other 7 billion people on the planet you don't know? I don't think so. It might or might not be a good thing if we COULD, but it might be a good thing as well, if we couldn't get sick - but we CAN.
Are we really ABLE to feel love for everyone? In an ABSTRACT way, I would haltingly agree. You can possibly love something like life in general, unspecified. But give them faces, attitudes, voices, smells, agendas, and points of view, and the picture changes. If you'd love everfyone, wouldn't that make love the most common, irrelevant feeling of them all?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 07:50 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:01, 24 Nov 2009.
|
Yes, again though he is strict (not counting the many loopholes he gives) because he is a bit 'purer' then humans and sets a higher standard. But lets get to the love thing.
Yes, but see you hit the nail on the head. It is love in the abstract that the bible is talking about. Now lets address some of the points you covered. Faces. So..just because somebody's face is a bit different we should treat them differently? Only blond haired, blue eyed people deserve our love? I certainly HOPE you don't mean that. Attitudes. Falls under the "you can love the person without loving their ways.". Voices .. like faces..fail to see the point with that. Smell? Same. Agendas/Point of view same as Attitudes. You don't have to agree with them to care about them (in an abstract way). Love is neither cheapened or diminished because of this.
In fact it might even make the other 'kinds' of love even more special.
Nowhere does it say you have to LIKE everybody, but just care about them as human beings. To not hate because they are different. A different color, or a different belief, or ... How is not hating a BAD thing?
Don't get me wrong, that doesn't stop people from Hating. Because people are human. Some look for any reason to hate, period.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:03 AM |
|
|
You are just playing with words here. Last time I checked, LOVE was a rather strong word - the strongest actually, in terms of liking -, and LOVE does NOT mean NOT HATE. Nor does it mean LIKE; it's MORE than like - and as you said, you may love someone EVEN THOUGH you don't like them.
BUT THAT'S FAMILY.
You KNOW those people. There's a bond, from personal knowledge right from your birth.
That's different with strangers. You cannot love a stranger. Period. You may want to - but what would incite that feeling in a practical way? There is no bond, of you get a person to know, and if you don't LIKE a stranger, you won't grow to LOVE him or her. You cannot just "produce" a feeling like love out of thin air.
That's worse with outright enemies. Can you love someone who hits you? Your father? What about a husband? Why WOULD you love a STRANGER who hits you? That's bad in an evolutionary sense - you shouldn't kill what you love because if you do, things get in the wrong perspective, but to survive you may have to kill en enemy.
My feeling here is that you either don't really think this through or dance around the problem.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:14 AM |
|
|
Neither, I think you are just confusing different types of love. There is more then one kind. I've thought this through in detail. You can love people as human beings without even liking them as a person. Again though it is a moot point. It is simply that we can not communicate. So, now that I have expressed my views..regardless if you can understand them or not. Again I will just leave it be.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:24 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:32 AM |
|
|
|
Okay, tell me about the difference, then. In practise, what is the difference, if you "love" someone as a human being, but don't like him - a stranger. What effect has this "loving him as a human being, but disliking him as a person"? As opposed to, say, "respecting him as a human being but disliking him as a person?"
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 09:54 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:55, 24 Nov 2009.
|
None really. It is about caring for human life more then anything. Which is where a lot of people get it wrong. It doesn't specify what type of love. It is not the same love you have for family. Or for your spouse. Or anything even similar. It is about recognizing other humans as something worthwhile. To care about them, even without knowing them.
If a person is lying hurt on the street. It is not about who they might be, you have no way of knowing if he is a mass murderer or a saint. You try to help them because it is the RIGHT thing to do. That is what it is about. Not just laying there while they try to hurt you, and not protecting yourself or your family. But treating two people you do not know personally the same, and in a positive way not a 'heck with em all' kind of way.
@Mvass - Thanks for the valuable input.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Neither, I think you are just confusing different types of love. There is more then one kind.
I whole-heartedly disagree There are no different types of hatred, sorrow, fear - how come love is any different?
A mixture of love and something else (lust, friendship, respect, etc) is why love tastes differently towards different persons (parents, partners, etc.). But the feeling must be the same, or we shouldn't call it "love" because those are different kinds of feelings indeed and shouldn't collectively be callled love.
Oh wait, that belongs to What is love thread. Whoops.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
