General Discussion: Religion thread


Show original post
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

4 Apr 2010 20:58
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was a permanent fixture in my mind as I plowed through my Mint Aero chocolate egg with free mug this glorious eventful day.
swiftus
swiftus avatar

1576 posts since 1/7/09

4 Apr 2010 21:17
EVERS wrote: you "shut the fuck up". these scientists were bought up in an age before contemporary thinking and modern technology was available.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. There are countless numbers of established scientists who have a religious/spiritual belief (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#Living)

EVERS wrote: in todays world you would have to be a maniac if you fail to understand the complete irrationality of organised religion.

So therefore, over 95% of the world's population are 'maniacs'?

EVERS wrote: the 'problem' with some religious folk is that their wretched belief and loyalty gives them a sense of entitlement which so governs their minds (much like any organist elitist group), that they are unable to take or keep a perspective on reality.

Keyword here: some. Nevertheless, those who don't have this sense of entitlement deserve to have their beliefs ridiculed. That's just grrrrreat!

A religious person could easily edit your sentence to read…

the 'problem' with some scientific folk is that their wretched experiments and research gives them a sense of entitlement which so governs their minds (much like any elitist group), that they are unable to accept the fact that people are different, and constantly feel the need to tell everyone what is right, and what is wrong.

Can't be arsed carrying on this argument with you, you've clearly not arguing with an open mind (unless you come out with something ridiculously stupid again).
unCouth
unCouth avatar

6883 posts since 3/11/07

4 Apr 2010 21:20
Happy birthday Jesus!!!!!1
Mr X
Mr X avatar

7053 posts since 12/7/07

4 Apr 2010 21:23
The book in the bible I find really interesting is the book of Job. It's books like this that make me believe in GOD.

It's fascinating. In a nutshell:

- Job was wealthy man, a godly gentleman, a good father and faithful husband.
- Satan converses with God and God offers Satan to experiment with Job to test his faith.
- God gives permission for Satan to remove Job's possessions and family.
- God let's Satan burn Job until he's covered in boils and has a shaven head. He suffers immense pain but not to the point of death.
-Job has three friends and the things they say to defend his innocence for Satan's punishment end up hindering not helping.
-They are shit friends!
-Job does not curse God's name or accuse God of injustice but rather seeks an explanation or an account of his wrong doing.
-Job questions God.

In response God describes what the experience of being the creator of the world is like, and asks if Job has ever had the experiences or the authority that God has had.

God's answer underscores that Job shares the world with numerous powerful and remarkable creatures.

God's speech also emphasizes his sovereignty in creating and maintaining the world. The thrust is not merely that God has experiences that Job does not, but also that God is King over the world and is not necessarily subject to questions from His creatures, including men. The point of these speeches, and ultimately the entire book of Job, is to defend the absolute freedom of God over His creation. God is not in need of the approval of His creation. He is free.

God condemns Job's friends for their ignorance and lack of understanding while commending Job for his righteous words, commands them to prepare burnt offerings and reassures them that Job will pray for their forgiveness. Job is restored to health, gaining double the riches he possessed before and having 7 sons and 3 daughters (his wife did not die in this ordeal). His new daughters were the most beautiful in the land, and were given inheritance along with their brothers. Job is blessed once again and lives on another 140 years after the ordeal, living to see his children to the fourth generation and dying peacefully of old age.
stelfox
stelfox avatar

8488 posts since 11/3/09

4 Apr 2010 21:47
evers you're the most elitist person in this thread.

also the most attacking. why the fuck have you got to be like that to me and the others? none of us did the awful things you seem to want to focus on whilst ignoring any good done by religious organisations.

you seem to think of anyone with religious beliefs as one-eyed and narrow minded yet you are coming across the worst in that respect.
EVERS
EVERS avatar

8580 posts since 2/7/06

4 Apr 2010 22:09
Farrell wrote: evers you're the most elitist person in this thread.

also the most attacking. why the fuck have you got to be like that to me and the others? none of us did the awful things you seem to want to focus on whilst ignoring any good done by religious organisations.

you seem to think of anyone with religious beliefs as one-eyed and narrow minded yet you are coming across the worst in that respect.

what 'awful' things are these I'm focussing on??????

my comments are not personal to you and the 'others' - they are countering your arguments, not you.

you surely know that most wars are fought in the name of religion and that it's been an open secret for years that some of those who work in the christian churches do so as a cover for deviant behaviour. this is not uncommon

you enjoy your religion but for me we know too much now and anyone who fails to challenge the established order of such a flawed and rotten movement based on nothing is beyond me.

EVERS
EVERS avatar

8580 posts since 2/7/06

4 Apr 2010 22:13
swiftus wrote:
EVERS wrote: you "shut the fuck up". these scientists were bought up in an age before contemporary thinking and modern technology was available.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. There are countless numbers of established scientists who have a religious/spiritual belief (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#Living)

EVERS wrote: in todays world you would have to be a maniac if you fail to understand the complete irrationality of organised religion.

So therefore, over 95% of the world's population are 'maniacs'?

EVERS wrote: the 'problem' with some religious folk is that their wretched belief and loyalty gives them a sense of entitlement which so governs their minds (much like any organist elitist group), that they are unable to take or keep a perspective on reality.

Keyword here: some. Nevertheless, those who don't have this sense of entitlement deserve to have their beliefs ridiculed. That's just grrrrreat!

A religious person could easily edit your sentence to read…

the 'problem' with some scientific folk is that their wretched experiments and research gives them a sense of entitlement which so governs their minds (much like any elitist group), that they are unable to accept the fact that people are different, and constantly feel the need to tell everyone what is right, and what is wrong.



Can't be arsed carrying on this argument with you, you've clearly not arguing with an open mind (unless you come out with something ridiculously stupid again).

my mind is open and you're into religion, therefore you cannot have an open mind, as you are conditioned to fit into 'rules' made up my someone else.

come back and have a debate with me when you have your own views on things and not those made up by organisations that start wars and fiddle with kids.
Noble Locks
Noble Locks avatar

66963 posts since 10/7/03

4 Apr 2010 22:27
so youd never marry your bird then evers. she must be over the moon in that knowledge every day. Cry
unless shes as outspoken as you on this subject, then ignore that comment.

p.s what have you given plans to people for your burial, how the fuck is that gonna work man?
leve you in an old fridge freezer in the back garden with a post it note saying
'here lays mr open minded, fuck religion'
billybrown
billybrown avatar

3199 posts since 30/9/07

4 Apr 2010 22:36
EVERS wrote: in todays world you would have to be a maniac if you fail to understand the complete irrationality of organised religion.

You've gone a bit milspex there.

Re the religion starting wars thing:

World War I: nothing to do with religion
World War II: nothing to with religion
Falklands: nothing to do with religion
Gulf Wars: nothing to do with religion

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. If there was no religion, there would still be wars.
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

4 Apr 2010 22:39
billybrown wrote: Gulf Wars: nothing to do with religion

ahem….

Blair prayed to God over Iraq

Eye-wink
EVERS
EVERS avatar

8580 posts since 2/7/06

4 Apr 2010 22:40
Noble Locks wrote: so youd never marry your bird then evers. she must be over the moon in that knowledge every day. Cry
unless shes as outspoken as you on this subject, then ignore that comment.

p.s what have you given plans to people for your burial, how the fuck is that gonna work man?
leve you in an old fridge freezer in the back garden with a post it note saying
'here lays mr open minded, fuck religion'


marriage & funerals have got nothing to do with religion. both are civil ceremonies. Roll Eyes

billybrown
billybrown avatar

3199 posts since 30/9/07

4 Apr 2010 22:41
billhicks wrote:
billybrown wrote: Gulf Wars: nothing to do with religion

ahem….

Blair prayed to God over Iraq

Eye-wink

Laughing out loud
EVERS
EVERS avatar

8580 posts since 2/7/06

4 Apr 2010 22:41
billybrown wrote:
EVERS wrote: in todays world you would have to be a maniac if you fail to understand the complete irrationality of organised religion.

You've gone a bit milspex there.

Re the religion starting wars thing:

World War I: nothing to do with religion
World War II: nothing to with religion
Falklands: nothing to do with religion
Gulf Wars: nothing to do with religion

I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. If there was no religion, there would still be wars.

suggest you do some research Laughing out loud
billybrown
billybrown avatar

3199 posts since 30/9/07

4 Apr 2010 22:44
Are you seriously saying, if there was no more religion, men would live in peace and harmony?
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

4 Apr 2010 22:45
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

(no bresone)
Serbia
Serbia avatar

4932 posts since 22/3/06

4 Apr 2010 22:45
I would highly recommend the following video. I went to a debate late last year titled "is atheism the new fundamentalism". This is the video of the debate

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism

Charles Morre was ex ed of Telegraph and Richard Harris the Bishop of Oxford. Predicatbly it turns in to a Christianity vs. Dawkins and Grayling debate but was a really insightful evening.

Speakers:

Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning).

Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else.

Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins.

Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore's suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.

Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.
EVERS
EVERS avatar

8580 posts since 2/7/06

4 Apr 2010 22:47
billybrown wrote: Are you seriously saying, if there was no more religion, men would live in peace and harmony?

no one has said that.

only a fool would.
eliotness
eliotness avatar

1506 posts since 1/2/09

4 Apr 2010 22:57
I am completely against the points EVERS is making, however, billy brown, world war 2 non religious?

I don't mean to poke holes in your argument but there were a specific bunch of people getting put in the concentration camps.

I don't understand why the majority of atheists are taking such a closed minded, elitist and aggressive view point.

That "atheism is the new fundamentalism" debate looks really interesting bresone. seems to apply a bit to this thread.
Noble Locks
Noble Locks avatar

66963 posts since 10/7/03

4 Apr 2010 22:58
EVERS wrote:
Noble Locks wrote: so youd never marry your bird then evers. she must be over the moon in that knowledge every day. Cry
unless shes as outspoken as you on this subject, then ignore that comment.

p.s what have you given plans to people for your burial, how the fuck is that gonna work man?
leve you in an old fridge freezer in the back garden with a post it note saying
'here lays mr open minded, fuck religion'


marriage & funerals have got nothing to do with religion. both are civil ceremonies. Roll Eyes

Puzzled
at both all ive ever seen is some vicar knob spouting off about god.
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

4 Apr 2010 23:03
me too, proper ruins a funeral.