Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 5 of 34

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   To the tw religious ppl (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=696182)

Brasstax 10-15-2020 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19246530)
Agreed, but at least more interesting than the political threads which are an even bigger waste of time.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

So, you rolled the "content topic" dice around in your brain for a variation to politics and came up with religion? ****. You must be a hoot at a party.

Brasstax 10-15-2020 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fool (Post 19246599)
I miss the Church of Mountain Dew thread. Shame all the links are dead.

https://i.imgur.com/7wsHPVV.jpg

Falhawk 10-15-2020 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brasstax (Post 19246631)
So, you rolled the "content topic" dice around in your brain for a variation to politics and came up with religion? ****. You must be a hoot at a party.

Only when Im wearing a lampshade on my head

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

amRam 10-15-2020 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoGodForMe (Post 19246551)
Religions are outdated in our modern world and need to be re-written. The problem is, they say things like "Allah's word is perfect." The Quran has over 100 passages telling their people to kill those who don't believe. It was written in a time when conquering lands through war was the way of life.

Christianity means good, but saying the earth is only 2k years old, there was an ark, the earth flooded, and so on is BS. The stories were written 2k years ago by people drunk on wine. It's that thing where you tell a story over and over, and it changes. I'm sure there was a flood a couple thousand years ago. But saying every animal got on a boat, the earth flooded for a month, and now we're here, no. Just no.

Attempts at making religions today are whacked cults. Scientology is the example of this.

So what's the answer? Make a bible based on real history, that tells people to be good.

The stories in the old testament, much like those in the new testament, were not literal. It's a shame fundamentalists believe these things word for word because it generally means they're missing the deeper lessons contained within. The old testament God was a reflection of the times throughout which the stories were written, spanning more than one thousand years.

bowl of blood 10-15-2020 13:27

i mean it was written at a time when they didn't have like geology or square roots so i wouldn't get too caught up on whether it's "meant" to be literal

it's the only thing they had written down, there wasn't like a fiction vs. non-fiction section in the library

Dr Dance 10-15-2020 13:37

Looks like tw was ready for another religious broo ha ha.

-SS- 10-15-2020 13:53

Where are the tombs of dead gods? What wailing mourner pours wine over their grave-mounds? There was a time when a being known as Zeus was the king of all the gods, and any man who doubted his might and majesty was a heathen and an enemy. But where in all the Imperium is there the man who worships Zeus? And what of Huitzilopochtli? Forty thousand maidens were slain in sacrifice to him, their dripping hearts burned in vast pyramid temples. When he frowned, the sun stood still, when he raged earthquakes destroyed entire cities, when he thirsted he was watered with oceans of blood. But today Huitzilopochtli is magnificently forgotten. And what of his brother, Tezcatilpoca? The ancients believed that Tezcatilpoca was almost as powerful as his brother. He consumed the hearts of almost thirty thousand virgins a year, but does anyone guard his tomb or know where it is to be found? Does anyone weep or hang mourning wreaths upon his graven image?

And what of Balor of the Eye, or the Lady of Cythera? Or of Dis, whom the Romanii Qaysar found to be the chief god of the Keltos? Or the dreaming serpent, Kajura? Of Taranis, only dimly recalled by a dead order of Knights and early historians of Unity? Or the flesh-hungry King Nzambi? Or the serpentine hosts of Cromm Crúaich, driven from their island lair by the Priest of Ravenglass? Where are their bones? Where is the tree of woe upon which to hang memorial garlands? In what forgotten abode of oblivion do they await their hour of resurrection?

They are not alone in eternity, for the tombs of dead gods are crowded. Urusix is there, and Esus, and Baldur, and Silvana, and Mithras, and Phoenicia, and Deva, and Kratus, and Uxellimus, and Borvo, and Grannos, and Mogons. All mighty gods in their day, worshipped by billions, replete with demands and commandments, ascribed the power to bind the elements and shake the foundations of the world.

Civilisations laboured for generations to build vast temples to them; towering structures of stone and steel, fashioned by technologies now lost in the unknowing of Old Night. Interpreting their divine desires fell to thousands of holy men; lunatic priests, dung-smeared shamans and opium-ravaged oracles. To doubt their pronouncements was to die in agony. Great armies took to the field to defend the gods against infidels and carry their will to heathen peoples in far of lands. Continents were burned, innocents butchered and worlds laid waste in their name. Yet in the end they all withered and died, cast down and justly unremembered. Today there are few so deranged as to do them reverence.

All were gods of the highest eminence, many of them mentioned with fear and trembling awe in the ancient texts of the White God. They ranked with the Highest Power; yet time has trampled them all underfoot and mocks the ashes of their bones. They were gods of the highest dignity – gods of civilised peoples – worshipped by entire worlds. All were omnipotent, omniscient and immortal.

And all are dead.

If any of them ever really existed, they were but aspects of the true Pantheon, masks behind which hide the first gods of the universe in all their terrible beauty. Lorgar has been vociferous in his proselytising of this fact, wearily so. But he does not know as much as he believes. Imperial Truth? Primordial Truth? Both are irrelevant.

There is a god who has raised Himself higher than all the others, mightier than any imagined deity or hell-spawned monster dreamed into being.

He is the Emperor.
My father.
And I have to kill Him.
That is the only Truth that matters.

NoGodForMe 10-15-2020 14:29

Interesting when you look at the Wiki to see what religions are the most popular.
Major religious groups - Wikipedia
The problem is Christianity is based on Abrahamic religions, which has now been taken over by Islam in the middle east. So why do people in the USA care about an Abrahamic religion?
Major religious groups Map
North and South America need their own religion.

This is why the USA needs a new bible, even if our country is only 244 years old. It actually started in 1492 with Christopher Columbus. That's 528 years. There has to be a God. But we don't have to worship stories form 2k years ago just because there is Jesus Christ who died on the cross. Or Muslims who believe in Mohamed. This is what causes wars. If you don't believe in their religion, they want you dead or they guilt you into following.

The USA won't be remembered in religious history, because we had nothing to do with the bible. Need to start our own. Can still have god, but the stories of our country and being good need to revolve around the USA. I'm sure many of the stories in the bible happened, but a lot of them are like a super powers movie and I don't believe them, especially the beginning of how humans and the earth were made, the ark, the flood, and so on. Needs to be re-written based on modern times.

Amadeus 10-15-2020 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin King (Post 19246388)
Discussions like this are almost always a massive waste of time for anyone that knows anything on the topic of religion.

Very few people are open and receptive to acquiring new knowledge on the topic, and most everyone is usually just primed and waiting to jump out of the bushes with the seemingly genius "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" thinking it's some kind of Ace card, when in fact it's a useless tool for people that haven't even scratched the surface.

If it's not that, it's any number of cherry picked verses from whatever holy book that they don't even understand any context behind and don't want to understand anyway because they have already dismissed it as being bologna.

Ultimately the discussion can be summed up as:

"I want to make fun of people that think differently than me, so please talk to me so I can laugh at you and belittle you."

Anyone biting on the hook is just a masochist.

Anyone that has any actual knowledge can tell the difference between someone seeking knowledge with sincerity and someone waiting in the bushes ready to "trap", so these discussions rarely ever involve anyone that actually knows anything, and it just turns into noobs yelling at other noobs.

Cliffs: These discussions are a waste of time.

If these discussions are a waste of time, it's because people are unwilling to admit that they have no good reason to believe the things they believe, and especially have no good reason to tell others that they should believe the same things.

Yes, it would be masochistic of you to try to answer OP's question, because you know you don't have a convincing answer. So here you are, trying to claim the moral high ground against strawmen, which ironically makes you look even more intellectually dishonest than if you actually tried to justify your beliefs with the usual intellectually dishonest methods.

GG, thanks for your ultimate surrender.

amRam 10-15-2020 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19246749)
If these discussions are a waste of time, it's because people are unwilling to admit that they have no good reason to believe the things they believe, and especially have no good reason to tell others that they should believe the same things.



Yes, it would be masochistic of you to try to answer OP's question, because you know you don't have a convincing answer. So here you are, trying to claim the moral high ground against strawmen, which ironically makes you look even more intellectually dishonest than if you actually tried to justify your beliefs with the usual intellectually dishonest methods.



GG, thanks for your ultimate surrender.

Is your explanation for human religious behaviour dating back upwards of 300,000 years simply that we were stupid but now we know better?

That's the problem with most atheists and why I stopped lumping myself into the group. Narrow field of view, too arrogant.

bowl of blood 10-15-2020 15:20

amadeus is close but no cigar

the real reason it's fruitless to discuss religion and politics is that questions like morality, the nature of reality, the ethics of governance take a lifetime to consider and no meaningful conversation can be held in a 90 second coffee break. so the options available are a.) exchange aphorisms b.) just talk about something else. of course no one can defend their beliefs in 5 minutes. i'd probably need a good 5 hours just to defend my belief in gravity, let alone whether a fetus has rights.

the questions are discussed among people who are willing to admit their own ignorance and would rather argue only when they've learned as much as they can on their own. this involves a lost art called reading. most people however don't have the disk space for this and i don't blame them. the more time you spend looking for god the less happy you will be.

Amadeus 10-15-2020 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by amRam (Post 19246753)
Is your explanation for human religious behaviour dating back upwards of 300,000 years simply that we were stupid but now we know better?

That's the problem with most atheists and why I stopped lumping myself into the group. Narrow field of view, too arrogant.

Only to the same degree that the explanation for us not having computers for all that time is that we were too stupid but now we know better. This is what progress looks like.

Human beings are not naturally good at reasoning. They are prone to a host of fallacies, for very good evolutionary reasons mind you.

For example, if you see a nearby bush rustling, it could just be the wind, or it could be a lion hiding behind it. The people who thought it was just the wind when it was in fact a lion got eaten by lions. The people who thought it's a lion even when it was just the wind ran away and got to live. Thus, natural selection favors people who see agency behind everything. You can see how that leads to people thinking that lightning is caused by a guy throwing bolts down from above the clouds.


We have since discovered methods for reliably deciding what is true and what isn't. They demonstrably work, and they repeatedly fail to confirm religious belief. This is a matter of fact, nothing arrogant about it.

bowl of blood 10-15-2020 15:23

we have methods for estimating and theorizing what is true

we do not have methods for reliably determining what is true

science makes predictions. it doesn't make facts.

Amadeus 10-15-2020 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowl of blood (Post 19246762)
we have methods for estimating and theorizing what is true

we do not have methods for reliably determining what is true

the computer you're using to write this post is evidence to the contrary

we have determined that pulling a bunch of minerals out of the ground, processing them and pressing them into little plates in a very specific way will reliably let you look at cat memes

amRam 10-15-2020 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19246761)
Only to the same degree that the explanation for us not having computers for all that time is that we were too stupid but now we know better. This is what progress looks like.



Human beings are not naturally good at reasoning. They are prone to a host of fallacies, for very good evolutionary reasons mind you.



For example, if you see a nearby bush rustling, it could just be the wind, or it could be a lion hiding behind it. The people who thought it was just the wind when it was in fact a lion got eaten by lions. The people who thought it's a lion even when it was just the wind ran away and got to live. Thus, natural selection favors people who see agency behind everything. You can see how that leads to people thinking that lightning is caused by a guy throwing bolts down from above the clouds.





We have since discovered methods for reliably deciding what is true and what isn't. They demonstrably work, and they repeatedly fail to confirm religious belief. This is a matter of fact, nothing arrogant about it.

The atheist approach to applying the scientific method and empirical evidence (or lack thereof) to metaphysical concepts is problem number two for your group. That's the issue with you guys, you're way too focused on arguing against the physical existence of God as if that was the only relevant "truth". Scientific truths aren't the only truths, and one can argue they are temporary until better "science" comes along.

I can't show you empirical evidence for my love of my children, or for my morality, or for my dreams and intuitions. Those concepts are nevertheless true as they exist in just about every human and across all cultures and all time.

It is absolutely arrogant to attempt to apply the scientific method to concepts of consciousness and morality and then dismiss 300,000 years of the human condition because it doesn't fit the rules of your game. It's absolutely not that simple.

Fool 10-15-2020 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19246764)
the computer you're using to write this post is evidence to the contrary

we have determined that pulling a bunch of minerals out of the ground, processing them and pressing them into little plates in a very specific way will reliably let you look at cat memes

Is today's computer the fastest computers will ever be?

samUwell 10-15-2020 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falhawk (Post 19246264)
What makes your religion more "right" than the others?

Same thing happens in all fields of thought. Be it science or religion. One is always superior to another. It is the way we humans are.

Take plasma cosmology. Completely unique way at looking at the universe rather than the 'standard theory' of the universe, which includes the Big Bang. This field of cosmology is gaining more people and it is threatening the standard theory, to the point where the scientists studying plasma cosmology are being denied the time to use the telescopes by the standard theory thinkers.

Same **** happens in archeology, biology or most fields of science. My way of thinking is superior than yours etc.

Amadeus 10-15-2020 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by amRam (Post 19246767)
The atheist approach to applying the scientific method and empirical evidence (or lack thereof) to metaphysical concepts is problem number two for your group. That's the issue with you guys, you're way too focused on arguing against the physical existence of God as if that was the only relevant "truth". Scientific truths aren't the only truths, and one can argue they are temporary until better "science" comes along.

I can't show you empirical evidence for my love of my children, or for my morality, or for my dreams and intuitions. Those concepts are nevertheless true as they exist in just about every human and across all cultures and all time.

It is absolutely arrogant to attempt to apply the scientific method to concepts of consciousness and morality and then dismiss 300,000 years of the human condition because it doesn't fit the rules of your game. It's absolutely not that simple.

For over 300,000 years, people thought that illnesses are caused by curses and demons, and can be cured by prayer. Is it arrogant to say they've been wrong all that time?

samUwell 10-15-2020 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by StapleMammal1 (Post 19246552)
2. The Earth was flooded. Half ass study geology and that fact becomes crystal clear. Of course putting every animal would not work. What would work is ---.

The DNA of every living species was put on that ark.

amRam 10-15-2020 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19246777)
For over 300,000 years, people thought that illnesses are caused by curses and demons, and can be cured by prayer. Is it arrogant to say they've been wrong all that time?

You said we have discovered methods for reliably deciding what is true and what isn't and that they demonstrably work, and they repeatedly fail to confirm religious belief.

How do they fail to confirm something we know has existed since the dawn of man?


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:24.
Page 5 of 34

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC