Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 30 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)

Amadeus 10-30-2020 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by amRam (Post 19253522)
Religious genocides are proof that religion is bad.

Secular genocides are just, like, you know, some other thing.

Irrational beliefs are dangerous.

Religion is irrational belief.

Therefore, religion is dangerous.


This is the textbook example of a syllogism. If both premises are true, then the conclusion is also true.

Let us know which premise you disagree with.

amRam 10-30-2020 19:58

Thank you for admitting that it's irrational to push secularism on humanity. It's dangerous.

Data 10-30-2020 23:37

lol rekt

Pagy 10-30-2020 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by amRam (Post 19253522)
Religious genocides are proof that religion is bad.

Secular genocides are just, like, you know, some other thing.

bro your logic is sound. His isnt.

you cant rationalize with someone that thinks its cool to **** kids. Youre not going to get through

LGBR 10-31-2020 03:28

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Pagy again.

NoGodForMe 11-01-2020 07:29

The Wiki and other web sites make it easy to study religion today. Back in the day, people didn't have this. So they followed what was local, and for most, it's the Christian bible.

It's Sunday, I was watching In Touch ministries on TV. The message was about surrendering your life to God. Give everything you have, because a pastor is telling you. No Thanks. I watch these shows knowing it's a cult. I always knew this and would say that to Laurie. She would get pissed at me and bring that up later saying it's not a cult.

If religion is so great, then why do they resort to Guilt (Christianity) and Violence (Islam) to keep their followers?

amRam 11-01-2020 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoGodForMe (Post 19253981)

* simpleton nonsense

It's not guilt. You need to read more wikipedia I think. The entire point of most of the teachings is to follow an ideal (Jesus for example) and on that path you'll reach "heaven"

By that same method the teachings expose you to hell so that you can know what it is and how to avoid it.

These are very basic fundamental lessons. Position yourself towards the greatest good you can imagine, follow that path and good things will come to you. Understand your own capacity for evil and control it so you don't "go to hell"

You can boil this lesson down from a million different stories. The point being that it works well on an individual level and has a proven track record.

The Pumpkin King 11-01-2020 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Not really, no. The concept of Intelligent Design as an issue of science (which is how it was originated - as a method to have a "non religious" (but religious) explanation of the universe taught as part of science, so bypassing the constitutional block of having religious studies in state schools. I'm describing why that fails as a form of science. Your point there highlights why I find 'strong athiesm' to be a fairly silly position to have as well.. Professing there is absolutely no god is just as flawed a position as the one they rail against. I don't believe there is one, as I've never seen anything to suggest that's the case, but I won't discount the possibility as an impossibility - it's basically just irrelevant.

There could be no more relevant question then:

Does God exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Why does that cause need to be a conscious one, though? If you say this Designer has always existed, and brought the universe into being, could the same not be true of some other factor, without the need for the added complexity of some conscious sentience to do so.

You are welcome to describe a different causal agent that could be equally responsible, but you'll find that when you try, you will always arrive at the same place...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Dog breeding? We have centuries of evidence showing how inherited traits can be selected and passed on. We do the same with flower cultivars, breeding new species quite regularly.. As far as "proper", wild stuff goes, there's a finch in the Galapagos which has been observed and tracked since the late 70s in which we've witnessed an "immigrant" species arrive and spawn off a recognisably distinct species...

https://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20141

If you want to "go large", with widespread whaling historically having vastly reduced its numbers, the Humpback Whale is split into two separate populations, in the North and South Hemispheres, which do not follow the same migration routes and so do not generally interbreed. They are growing distinctly different and there's some argument that they're genetically distinct subspecies already.

A dog becoming a different type of dog, is not proof that it can become a totally different animal.

Whales being whales does not prove that they can become seven-headed-hydras.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
The concept of ID has been around for centuries, but it has always been in a theological context - all religions have some form of creation mythology. The term itself however was relatively unused until it was basically levered in to replace the term "Creationism" in the 1980s when teaching of that topic in US state schools was challenged and deemed unconstitutional, due to its overtly religious nature. The 'religious right' in the US adopted the new phrase, dropped out the overtly religious bits, and re-worked the idea to get around the ban and get it back in schools. The "something highly intelligent" creator you refer to is a god in all but name.

It's not mythology to know that somebody built my clock.

It's nothing but pure common sense to look at something with highly complex design, such as a web application, and know that it has been built by something intelligent.

Yes, and when you try to come up with another causal agent for the creation of the universe, you will face the same dilemma. It will just be God by another name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Except that it isn't. Go look back on the history of it and you'll see the flaw. It's started with the answer it's looking for and then has worked backwards to find support. It's literally that guy at the murder scene you described, pointing at "a creator" and saying "he did it!", then finding the evidence that fits.

There is nothing wrong with making a proposition, so long as you test it, measure it, look for flaws, see if it holds up under scrutiny, and see if the evidence supports that proposition.

What if, in the above example, they take an honest look at all of the hard-evidence for 10 straight years, with 5,000 experiments conducted with a sincere attempt to prove it wrong, and not even one piece of evidence suggesting that it is wrong ever surfaces?

Intelligent design holds up excellently under scientific scrutiny, as it should, since it is the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
No. The simplest and best explanation for it is an agent. Doesn't have to be creative, doesn't have to be intelligent, doesn't have to be any sort of consciousness, just a 'thing'. That's adding complexity that need not be there. (For reference, M-Theory does kinda address what that thing might be.).

I'm sorry, but this is not correct.

I have not added any complexity.

How does a painter paint a painting without intelligence or consciousness?

I say this with full respect, but I do not believe I'm the one adding complexity to the discussion.

Stripping things away does not always equate to things being less complex. Sometimes it makes things even harder to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Again, back to the puddle...

Ok, let's say for your example that it's possible for that computer to have spawned from chaos. Insanely unlikely, infinitesimally small odds, but theoretically possible.

The chances of you stumbling across it are similarly preposterous.

But in an infinite number of cases, it will happen, under some bizarre circumstance. What if those same, bizarre circumstances were the same prerequisites that were required for you and me to exist, be walking along that road and arriving at the computer?

All that complexity you see as being the result of some intelligent design has absolutely no need to be 'design'. Given a specific set of constants and interactions, it's actually impossible for that computer not to spawn from the chaos. If those same constants and interactions that produce that computer are the same ones that produce you and me on that street, then yes - it's an absolute fact that that computer spawned from the chaos. In an infinite cosmos, there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of variables. In one of them, is us, where computers randomly spawning from the aether is nonsensical... but there's another one out there where you can't take two steps without having to dodge a freshly spawned Macbook Pro.

You're viewing the universe as a place built specifically for you, and therefore seeing all this amazing 'fine tuning' to make it fit your needs, rather than yourself as the natural and logical product of that configuration.

The puddle takes the shape of the pothole, not vice versa.

No, I do not view this universe as a place specifically built for me. If it were such a place, there would also be at least a 50 to 1 girl to guy ratio on this planet. We'd also be able to exist in outer-space without instantly dying. I believe we are woefully underequipped to deal with the universe we have spawned into and it is full of tremendous suffering, misery, and death. This only serves to make it more miraculous that we are here.

It definitely looks to me as if we do not belong here, or have any right to be here.

I understand your puddle example and I can appreciate how you view the world.

But in my thoughts on puddles and potholes, we are not a part of that picture at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Nope, sorry. I have no idea what secular humanism proposes or teaches, I'm generally not that big into labels. I'd probably agree that life in itself doesn't hold any sort of 'value' you can measure. Again, you're delving in philosophy rather than science. As far as a philosophy of life goes, I'd say: Treat other people the way you'd like them to treat you, don't be an ******* (which goes back to a: ) and try to leave the world in a better state than you left it (which also goes back to a:, who wants to arrive to a mess?)

I've never argued that science teaches creeds on life. There must have been a disconnect at some point.

What I'm saying is that Secular Humanism teaches that life has no intrinsic purpose, meaning, or value.

As I have not been corrected on this, I think it is safe to say that we agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
I'd say that's because morality is a completely subjective matter. It's based on your own personal conditioning to what is normal and what is not. I'd suggest most people would find the idea of a human sacrifice to be deeply objectionable and utterly immoral, yet to the Aztecs it was a noble and revered act of worship that people found great honour in. The morality of it is determined by those involved - it is subjective, not objective. So yeah, I'd be perfectly happy to say there is no objective moral truth. Morality is subjective by definition.

Yes, this is the secular humanistic stance. This stance is perhaps the most dangerous positive assertion the worldview makes.

My stance is that there are objective moral truths.

Intentionally torturing babies with intense physical pan for ones own entertainment, for example, will always be wrong, regardless of any cultural or environmental factors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Have to say that that 'conservapedia' site (whose neutrality on the subject I'll take with a pinch of salt) references a single study. Here's another (emphasis mine):

Number one on that list of suicide rates is Lithuania. As someone with Lithuanian heritage, I can tell you it is a deeply catholic country. A quick check shows over 77% of the population identifies as Roman Catholic, and one of the notable tourist attractions it has is the 'Hill of Crosses', where people plant crosses to honour their dead. During the Russian occupation of the Soviet times, that hill was regularly bulldozed as part of the Russian efforts to stamp out the religious practices - the crosses were inevitably replaced overnight, and the russians eventually gave up on it. I'm not sure how he's drawing his conclusions there, but to me it would appear to fall at the first hurdle.

Not to diminish this one (I've seen suicides pretty close up, too), but what you've described doesn't really suggest his death was due to his athiesm, nor that it would have been avoided by religion. That's really not a conclusion you could form one way or the other. It may have helped him, it may not. Maybe any number of other things would have as well.

Oh I agree on all points.

There is no way to prove one way or the other.

I thought it was generally accepted science that there was a connection between depression and Atheism, but perhaps I was entirely wrong about that.

That makes sense.

I especially appreciated that study you linked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
No, not really what I meant if that's how it came across. I see religion as being a way of making sense of things we don't otherwise understand. It's the caveman witnessing a sunrise and trying to explain it, without any concept of a solar system or orbital mechanics. It's cowering from a thunderstorm without being able to understand thermodynamics and electricity. It's finding answers to fill in the blanks, that satisfy our curiosity. That's all I mean by "taking comfort" - it's providing some sort of working answer to a nagging and possibly disquieting question.

I totally get how you feel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
As I said (or.. maybe I edited it out? I've lost track), There's no reason religion and science need be in opposition. Science does not seek to give meaning for things, only what is and what is not. The only time they conflict is when science provides an answer to one of those 'caveman questions' which we've previously answered through religion, and the dogma is 'challenged'. In general though, at their fundamental levels, they are completely separate schools. I see religion as a form of philosophy - where we look to explain our human foibles.

And yet the notion strongly perpetuates that anyone religious despises science.

It is groanworthy to hear it every single time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Correct. Now: Why does that 'causal agent' need to be intelligent? Why do you feel our universe need be 'designed'? In an infinite multiverse, our universe is just a single example, and we are the natural products of that example - as the same seed in a computer-generated 'random' number will always return the same result, we are the inevitable result of the same conditions that spawned our universe. No intelligence, no design, just mathematics.

Mathematics are not causal by nature.

Where did the timeline for the math to operate come from?

Where did the space for the math to operate within come from?

The moment you remove the word 'intelligent' or 'conscious' from the picture, you just squash the whole thing into drivel.

The reason that the universe is designed is because you can put a gorilla on a typewriter and it will never write the book Tom Sawyer...


Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
I'd suggest that's a lot less to do with the content of the religions themselves, and a great deal more with the power of the institutions behind them. I'd say the Christian domination of Latin America has little to do with whether Jesus or Quezalcoatl had the more persuasive arguments, and a lot more to do with Spanish gunpowder.

Religion seeps deeply in the mind. Different religions have different effects. Religions are not all of equal or similar power.

Christians being sent to their death by lions in Rome would sing joyfully as they were being devoured. Vikings would run joyfully to their deaths in battle, knowing that dying in a fight would mean Valhalla for them. Religion just takes things to another level.

While I'm sure that they spread through physical and cultural means as an assisting factor, I believe there is another power element about religion that overshadows those things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
This is the bit we keep circling back to. You see design where there is none. Given the right 'seed', this is the only way our universe can exist. Change the seed just a little, and we're no longer who we are, we're now coloured purple, breathe liquid iron and are having this same discussion from our homes in the atmosphere of a gas giant - all of which are absolutely normal things - and in an infinite multiverse, exactly that is happening.

If you change the seed just a little, we're not colored purple, we are just dead, along with the rest of the universe.

The effect of recalibration in any significant degree yields either cataclysm or non-existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
So what you're saying is that it's not intended for anyone other than the long-dead Corinthians to whom it was written?

No, I would never say that.

I'm saying that it was a letter written to people in Corinth, nothing more.

Corinth was a unique place with a lot of unique problems.

What I was saying is that it is effortless for someone to take things out of context if they so desire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19253261)
Then we should probably stop having people read it out every Sunday, then. If these teachings are no more than a product of their times as you suggest, then let them remain as that and stop trying to hold them up as some sort of universal truth.

I would not minimize the teachings in such a manner. I was suggesting the opposite, that people's reactions to them in 2020 are a product of the times.

Often, the things we read in history are highly relevant to today.

However, they need to be read through a history lens, putting the culture of the times in context, if we are to understand what they mean on any sort of level. If a new story from one week ago can be easily misunderstood, what do you think will happen if we treat 2000 year old stories recklessly?

Why would we stop teaching such valuable stories that have stood the test of time?

To make room for WAP twerking as a much higher priority?

Would you rather your daughter listen to "The Prodigal Son" or listen to "there's some whores in this house" on repeat?

Society today is so woefully underequipped to raise children.

All society mostly teaches is twerking, pursuit of fame, lust for money, and thirst for power.

The deeper meanings of the stories in religious books can help guide a child to make good life decisions for decades.

If you do not fill a child's head with life-enriching stories, they will find life-corrupting stories to take their place.

Groove 11-01-2020 22:33

ya but dont 4get 2 bring a bucket and a mop for that wet ass p-word

ily tpk happy belated bday

The Pumpkin King 11-01-2020 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagy (Post 19253347)
Hamster youre a better person than i am
.

He is a very pleasant person to communicate with.

His ideas are very interesting and he articulates them very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagy (Post 19253347)
the issue with tpk is that hes never studied science. Hes studied what creationists say about science.

You are boring me half to death at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagy (Post 19253347)
I mean hes making statements straight out of their playbook. Lol 2nd law of thermodynamics! Has he tried to talk about eyeballs and irreducible complexity yet?

Eyeballs and irreducible complexity? No clue...

I get it, it's much better for you if I'm just a brainwashed kool-aid drinking automaton that rehearses scripted material right?

Not like you right? You are a free thinker.

*big yawn*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagy (Post 19253347)
intelligent design isnt science. if tpk is honest about understanding why, there are mountains of materials online regarding the kitzmiller v dover trial. there are many youtube videos explaining what science is and why id isnt it.

if he starts studying scientific sources instead of what creationists claim about science...hed stop asking questions like “why are there still monkeys”

The 'ol tried and true accusation of intellectual dishonesty. I think this is #5 or #6 in this thread?

Oh, and it comes together with a packaged deal "you don't know science" mockery and humiliation, how nice.

Maybe people would stop asking questions if they started getting answered, rather then getting firehosed with negative emotional responses followed by insults, humiliation, mockery, and a refusal to answer the actual question?

Pagy, I swear you would complain about the smell if you crapped on your own face.

Discussing religious matters with you on here has been like going through a time-warp back to the 2nd grade of elementary school. You've got that "call the other guy a poopy pants" stuff seriously down man.

MC Hamster isn't better than you. He just made a willful adult decision to treat another human like a human and is acting upon that. You could just as easily do the same, but you choose to stick to your "poopy pants" stuff, which is your adult decision.

The way that you communicate with others is reflective of who you are on the inside.

The Pumpkin King 11-01-2020 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groove (Post 19254308)
ya but dont 4get 2 bring a bucket and a mop for that wet ass p-word

ily tpk happy belated bday

Hahahahaha @ the pword.

Thanks Groove. You a bro. :)

Data 11-01-2020 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus (Post 19253540)
Irrational beliefs are dangerous.

Religion is irrational belief.

Therefore, religion is dangerous.

I keep coming back to this because it's so unbelievably stupid.

Belief in a higher power can't be irrational because it cannot be objectively disproven, anymore than the multiverse hypothesis or the simulation hypothesis could be disproven. There's a reason these things are studied in philosophy and not theoretical physics -- they try to answer questions science isn't prepared to tackle.

Moreover, people commonly hold all sorts of irrational beliefs with absolutely no dangerous results. Do you have a lucky number? Do you believe all celebrity deaths come in threes? Have you ever loved someone who hated you? Have you ever argued with a pedophile on the internet?

So your premise is garbage and your conclusion is a ****ing joke. You should seriously kill yourself.

The Pumpkin King 11-01-2020 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoGodForMe (Post 19253981)
If religion is so great, then why do they resort to Guilt (Christianity) and Violence (Islam) to keep their followers?

And if your religion is so great, why does it rely on mockery and humiliation to keep its followers?

MC Hamster 11-02-2020 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin King (Post 19254302)
There could be no more relevant question then:

Does God exist?

No, that's actually a pretty irrelevant question. You've already noted there's nothing out there to empirically prove His existence. You're demanding the existence of some anonymous "Intelligent Designer", but even you don't seem to be willing to state that's the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God (and not one of the thousands of others people have and do believe in around the world, all of which come with their own creation mythology which is equally plausible if "there must be a consciousness behind this" is your only proof)


Quote:

You are welcome to describe a different causal agent
As I said, random chance. In an infinite number of dice throws, the one that results in you and me having this conversation must occur.


Quote:

A dog becoming a different type of dog, is not proof that it can become a totally different animal.

Whales being whales does not prove that they can become seven-headed-hydras.
Now you're either being deliberately naive or else you genuinely don't understand evolution. This is not something there's really any significant scientific doubt over. The Cambrian Explosion took place over at least ten million years, which puts it longer than us hominids have even existed. Biologically speaking, it's really not that rapid. So yes, it's entirely possible for the sort of evolution those short-lived lifeforms would be subject to to have happened in that sort of timeframe.

Quote:

Yes, and when you try to come up with another causal agent for the creation of the universe, you will face the same dilemma. It will just be God by another name.
Nonsense. Again, you're assuming conscious 'design' where there need not be any. Take that random number generator, punch a seed into it and it'll give you your social security number. Design? No. Punch in an infinite number of seeds, and one of those results must be that number. If you have a filter on that generator that will only show the number if it matches your social security number, then voila, there you have it. We have a filter on our universe as being one that works for us. Infinite random setups, and out we pop. No magic, no design or designer, just simple logic. We're here because we can be.



Quote:

Intelligent design holds up excellently under scientific scrutiny,
It really doesn't. There are any number of articles out there which point out the numerous flaws in that statement.

Quote:

as it should, since it is the truth.
...and that right there is one of its fundamental flaws. It isn't until you prove it, and even then you should be open to the possibility that it is not. Your mind is closed to the possibility that it's wrong.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but this is not correct.

I have not added any complexity.
The process can happen perfectly well without a creator. There is absolutely no need for it. You are inserting a variable which need not exist. Yes: by definition, you are adding unnecessary complexity.

Quote:

No, I do not view this universe as a place specifically built for me. If it were such a place, there would also be at least a 50 to 1 girl to guy ratio on this planet. We'd also be able to exist in outer-space without instantly dying. I believe we are woefully underequipped to deal with the universe we have spawned into and it is full of tremendous suffering, misery, and death. This only serves to make it more miraculous that we are here.

It definitely looks to me as if we do not belong here, or have any right to be here.
We are here. We are a product of the constants that created this universe. Other constants, we'd be different, or non-existent. Either way, we are the only possible outcome of this specific universe. In that way, it absolutely is made for us. The other universe with a 50:1 girl to guy ratio in which we fly through space and live in eternal bliss - that's out there too, it's just a different dice roll.

Quote:

I understand your puddle example
If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:

I've never argued that science teaches creeds on life. There must have been a disconnect at some point.

What I'm saying is that Secular Humanism teaches that life has no intrinsic purpose, meaning, or value.

As I have not been corrected on this, I think it is safe to say that we agree.
No, I've already stated I don't know (or particularly care) what Secular Humanism teaches, I'm not here to try to put a label on my own thoughts on life. Therefore I'm not going to correct you. I'm not suggesting I agree though, only that I don't know. There's a fundamental difference in that reasoning that's somewhat relevant here.


Quote:

My stance is that there are objective moral truths.

Intentionally torturing babies with intense physical pan for ones own entertainment, for example, will always be wrong, regardless of any cultural or environmental factors.
"wrong"? What is "wrong"? Define it. How are you measuring that? Exactly how 'wrong' are these things? What is the unit of measurement? How does that compare to cheating on your wife, or lying on your tax return, or donating to charity?

Those would be entirely straightforward, simple questions to answer if what you stated was true. You could tell me down to ten decimal places how those compare. That's what "Objective" means.

No, morality is not objective. Morality is a human construct and entirely dependent on the subject. You would not need to cite such an extreme example if it weren't, because we'd be able to agree that sacrificing a goat to appease a god (the wrong one, not yours) is X units of wrong.

That by no means that secularism has no morality. Philosophers have discussed it since well before Christianity (or even monotheism) even existed, and I'd suggest that treating someone with kindness and respect because you are able to empathise with their situation is (subjectively) far more "moral" than doing so to secure your own place in some blissful afterlife. That is an entirely selfish stance and fundamentally lacks morality.


Quote:

The moment you remove the word 'intelligent' or 'conscious' from the picture, you just squash the whole thing into drivel.

The reason that the universe is designed is because you can put a gorilla on a typewriter and it will never write the book Tom Sawyer...
Yeah, but an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters and you get the entire Library of Congress. This is the bit you're skipping over or just not grasping. An infinite universe means this has to exist.

Quote:

While I'm sure that they spread through physical and cultural means as an assisting factor, I believe there is another power element about religion that overshadows those things.
Yep. Politics and Power, it really comes down to that. Going back to a previous subject, Lithuania was home to the last surviving pagan religion in Europe. They actually had crusades called against them by the Pope. They adopted Christianity as a way to put an end the religiously-sanctioned invasion of their homeland by the Teutonic order, it really comes down to that. Accept Jesus or die. How does that rate on the objective morality scale?


Quote:

If you change the seed just a little, we're not colored purple, we are just dead, along with the rest of the universe.

The effect of recalibration in any significant degree yields either cataclysm or non-existence.
Yep, so we're not around to wonder at those versions. We only get to see this one, with the familiar constants that 'work' for us. And yes, with one of those seeds, we are purple. We are every conceivable possibility.


Quote:

I'm saying that it was a letter written to people in Corinth, nothing more.
Given that then, why raise the subject? If it's 'nothing more' than a letter to long-dead Corinthians, why is it still being published? You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that only bits and pieces of it are relevant, then you're beginning to make judgement calls on it, and if you're making judgement calls on it then you are imposing your own views on what is and what is not important to it. So you're going to be ignoring bits you don't agree with, while putting undue importance on the bits you like, consciously or not. If you're only accepting the bits that you view as 'still valid', then you acknowledge that there is no fundamental pervasive wisdom in there, just stuff that you agree with and stuff that you don't.

Quote:

Why would we stop teaching such valuable stories that have stood the test of time?
Why would we keep teaching those stories which have not? During the past 100 years we have unprecedented levels of advancement and development in all sorts of fundamental understandings of the universe, of personal and social development and change. How many of those stories have been edited out of the Bible as being no longer valid? We've had decades of evidence to say that camels just weren't around in the middle east in the time of Abraham, yet check out the book and there he still is, with his giant herds of animals which weren't there.

Quote:

Would you rather your daughter listen to "The Prodigal Son" or listen to "there's some whores in this house" on repeat?
I'd prefer she go check out some Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams. Highly entertaining stuff and still with some very good messages, and no-one's going to kill you for not agreeing with them. Maybe she could go read some Plato, or Homer. Maybe go check out Tom Sawyer, or maybe even check out On the Origin of Species, or A Brief History of Time ;)


Quote:

Society today is so woefully underequipped to raise children.

All society mostly teaches is twerking, pursuit of fame, lust for money, and thirst for power.
These things have never existed in the past. That's why Jesus had to go and trash the moneylenders who apparently didn't exist and weren't profiteering off the poor that one time. It's a good thing that he did though, and that two thousand years of teaching have stamped that sort of nonsense out entirely.

Quote:

The deeper meanings of the stories in religious books can help guide a child to make good life decisions for decades.
They can also break them entirely. The value is not in the story or the book, but in the lesson and the teacher, and that need not be one that involves sky wizards.

Quote:

If you do not fill a child's head with life-enriching stories, they will find life-corrupting stories to take their place.
Again, there's no need for that to be religious. I'd also suggest that if the only thing keeping that child 'enriched' is having to live their life by a specific set of standards to face some theoretical reward or punishment at the end of it, then that child is woefully ill-equipped to deal with any situations which may fall outside of those specific rules and standards. That's where you get atrocities performed "in the name of the book" when someone can find the right way to interpret their hatred and bile.

Falhawk 11-02-2020 07:22

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/s...490705414?s=20

Heh heh heh

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

NoGodForMe 11-02-2020 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin King (Post 19254335)
And if your religion is so great, why does it rely on mockery and humiliation to keep its followers?

I don't have a religion, but I've made a point saying America needs a US Bible.

It's too late for me to write a religion, but if I did, it would start when Christopher Columbus came to America and concentrate on the USA. There wouldn't be a super power son of God. It would focus on being a good person. It would be called The Book of Robert.

One day people will look to follow a different Bible, because the number of followers of religion in the US is dropping. Many articles like this.
In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace | Pew Research Center

Chrom 11-02-2020 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoGodForMe (Post 19254451)
One day people will look to follow a different Bible,


Yes, it's called the Koran.

(I don't care how it is spelled).

Pagy 11-02-2020 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC Hamster (Post 19254407)
It really doesn't. There are any number of articles out there which point out the numerous flaws in that statement.

there's nothing scientific about intelligent design. it's creationism. he's never going to drop it. anytime you explain to him how reality works, he rejects it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

Zanthious 11-02-2020 09:14

Religion is great it makes people who are scared of this dude in the sky so they dont **** and steal and be a general *******.. I mean yeh ppl are going to taske advantage but they do that with business anyways so its just meh.

Falhawk 11-02-2020 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoGodForMe (Post 19254451)
I don't have a religion, but I've made a point saying America needs a US Bible.



It's too late for me to write a religion, but if I did, it would start when Christopher Columbus came to America and concentrate on the USA. There wouldn't be a super power son of God. It would focus on being a good person. It would be called The Book of Robert.



One day people will look to follow a different Bible, because the number of followers of religion in the US is dropping. Many articles like this.

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace | Pew Research Center

TWHOF.

Now.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:12.
Page 30 of 34

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