Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie?

 

All sources of scientific knowledge are based on evidence that you can go look at if you want to. Want to see the fossils that were found? Want to test their credibility? You can. You might need to be a scientist do to some things, but you could still do it if you wanted to.

How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word

- why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different?

 

Because I can go look into a telescope for myself and see the things in space...Also you act like one random guy looked into a telescope and out of it came scientific knowledge. Millions of astronomers worldwide are all looking at the same thing and verifying each others claims.

 

Compare this to "religious experiences", which are independent and verified by nobody. Furthermore, "religious experiences" conveniently appear to change depending on what religion the person believes in, which suggests that these experiences are just artifacts of the person's mind.

 

If all people across the world experienced the same religious experience and saw the same God, then I might be more inclined to take the evidence more seriously.

 

It's just like alien abductions. They all have either largely different stores or stories that are congruent with only their personal belief about aliens.

 

Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual?

 

And how is this explained by the person having a soul that is posessed by the devil?

 

First of all, foreign and ancient tongues -- I would like to see conclusive evidence that the person is actually speaking a real language.

 

Second of all, people only use about 30% of their available muscular strength when using it conciously.

 

Thirdly, change in behavior has nothing to do with a spirit. People change their mood when they smoke pot, is pot an exorcist?

 

I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - .

Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.

 

First of all, nobody is saying that the person has to be lying. An exorcist can be delusional also and actually believe that the things he sees are due to God.

 

Secondly, if he is telling the truth, how can you say that he is correct rather than all of the other spiritual or religious men across the world? I bet I could find you 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions who all have very different explanations for what an exorcism is, what the soul is, and what you need to do to cleanse the soul. Are all of them right?

 

And thirdly, if you seriously think there is no financial motivation to preach about religious success stories then you're missing out. Look at this auditorium that man is speaking at. Do you think he speaks there for free?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - .

Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.

Secondly, if he is telling the truth, how can you say that he is correct rather than all of the other spiritual or religious men across the world? I bet I could find you 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions who all have very different explanations for what an exorcism is, what the soul is, and what you need to do to cleanse the soul. Are all of them right?

So find 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions. Even if you do, you'll still find a common underlying theme - good and evil exists, and demons exist - all of which is essentially correct.

 

And thirdly, if you seriously think there is no financial motivation to preach about religious success stories then you're missing out. Look at this auditorium that man is speaking at. Do you think he speaks there for free?

He might require for them to pay for his travel expenses, or make a donation to some religious cause. He is a Catholic priest, so I can say without hesitating that he is poor.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - .

Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.

Secondly, if he is telling the truth, how can you say that he is correct rather than all of the other spiritual or religious men across the world? I bet I could find you 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions who all have very different explanations for what an exorcism is, what the soul is, and what you need to do to cleanse the soul. Are all of them right?

So find 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions. Even if you do, you'll still find a common underlying theme - good and evil exists, and demons exist - all of which is essentially correct.

 

And where is the scientific explanation for this? Where is the soul located? What is the mechanism for how a demon can posess a soul? How do you know that the soul is there? How do you know the demon is there? Where are these things? What are they made out of?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I misinterpreted what was meant. I thought you meant that religious believers were privy to some information that was worth dying for, that non-believers were incapable of understanding because they weren't religious. The same accusation would have worked the other way; atheists who instantly dismiss believers as irrational simply because they happen to believe in something they personally don't are just as silly.

 

Do people also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat and not be called "irrational"? I mean they just happen to believe in something that you don't believe.

 

No, they don't. We know for a fact the Earth is round and we've known this since the 16th century. We've sailed around it, we've seen it from space and saw that it was, in fact, round. There's simply not a single piece of evidence that says otherwise. Calling them irrational might be a bit unfair, uneducated would match the situation better. But honestly, show me anyone that thinks the earth is flat.

 

What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give.

 

Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god.

 

First: The Flat Earth Society.

 

Second, and I'll be repeating myself frequently: You can say its personal, and I agree that it should be; but in its current state, no it is not, and it won't be until people realize that not everyone agrees with their claims.

 

There's a huge difference between unicorns and God, there's no denying that. This discussion is about religion, not about unicorns. Have you ever seen someone pray to a unicorn?

 

On the subject of praying, there are people that are seriously influenced by their religion, that feel someone is listening to their prayers. I've seen it first-hand. It's not just "Yeah, sure, I believe in God.", but "I feel God is looking over me, protecting me and hearing my prayers." Who are you to dismiss what other people feel?

 

Kind of random, but without anecdotal evidence of the powers of either Yahweh or Unicorns, and given the legends of suck beasts as Unicorns, one cannot assert that Unicorns and any God are not on-par with one another in terms of power. There is, of course, Holy Books, but if you must use a Holy Book to prove someone wrong, then you have already lost.

 

The argument for unicorns is an example of faith, pure and simple. No one is trying (and if they are, shouldn't be) to equate that as a God figure, and if they are, then they need to realize their mistake and admit they're wrong. The fact is, Unicorns don't exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people took it on faith that they do because their Bible told them or because they're stubborn to the fact that they do not exist. [sidetrack]I remember when CrustyGoblinFoot was making the argument for God in terms of being unable to compare Santa because one is a Deity, but unfortunately that doesn't work either, because Deities in and of themselves are a product of human imagination, and a human cannot determine the powers of the deity itself first hand. We make concessions to what a God should be in terms of its super powers and wonder, but that is fallacious in and of itself. Now, I think that was the argument he was using against wep but I could be wrong.[/sidetrack]

 

And who are they to dismiss us, and tell us we'll burn in hell for all eternity for not believing in their particular deity?

 

But even to that degree, no one is trying to degrade anyone. But if they shoot us, does that not give us the right to shoot back? If they tell us, "HEY! you're going to burn because you don't believe, and you need to repent!!" and we tell them no and then fire back, that makes us bad?

 

I agree, people are influenced by faith, but not religion. People can have religion with no Faith, and vice versa to that fact. Faith can be incredibly powerful, and driven by organized religion maybe, but it is truly th faith that drives people. And, by and large, its dangerous. "Faith without evidence is not a virtue, it is gullibility; it is evidence that determines if your perception of reality is reasonable and in conjunction with the world as is." -Matt Dillahunty

 

You can believe that there is a God, fine; no one says you cannot. But don't give me the excuse that I should have faith to believe. Produce logical evidence first and then I'll believe. Otherwise, don't make the claim to me and treat me as a subhuman if I don't accept it.

 

Why the hell should a religious person need to give evidence? If he himself is sure that God is guiding him, why do you want to rain on his parade and ask for evidence? Religion isn't a science, it's a personal matter.

 

Well, first of all, because the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. That's one reason. You take the personal matter thing for granted quite frequently I see. The thing is, no everywhere is tolerant of an Atheist, or somone of an opposing belief, and some of those people try to indoctrinate and incorporate their belief systems into society. Look at the good 'ol USA, where there are thousands of people who assert these claims and dismiss everything else. In the USA, religion isn't personal, and people need to understand this. I've seen whole relationships destroyed because one friend doesn't believe in God, and the other shuns them for no reason other than that. Fine, that is there prerogative. But, unfortunately, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Don't preach to me that there is one and tell me I must have faith. Show me evidence. That is why they need to produce evidence; not because we think it to be "scientific" but because they make these claims, and one cannot make a claim and no back it up. If you want to keep it personal, as you said, fine; but unfortunately, that is not the prerogative of a lot of powerful religious people.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using historical and verifiable facts as proof that there is something more to Christianity than there is to pastafarianism. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it fiction, especially when the events are non-secular.

 

A lot of the Bible we cannot verify, and that is the problem. We don't know if Jesus was real, and that wouldn't even be his name had he existed (it would be Jeshua AKA Joshua); most of the Gospels were written 60-100 years after the supposed death of Christ at around 30 A.D. or so; most of the Chronicles of Jesus weren't even mentioned in other known recorded history. The Bible itself also has no original copies and has a lot of flaws within places such as the old testament. For example, the Jews being enslaved never happened in recorded history. The Greeks, Romans, nor even the Persians have any histroy of slavery. The Egyptians actually hired paid workers to build the pyramids for them.

 

There are even Gospels that were created but aren't considered "canon" such as the Book of Judas, which we cannot even verify s being true but are excluded anyway due to Church doctrine in conflict with some Gospels.

 

Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.

 

So, basically, why would people die for their belief?

 

Well, why would 918 people drink the poisoned kool-AID at Jonestown?

 

Why would 74 members of a cult fight the US government to the death to defend their Messiah at Waco?

 

Why would 39 people commit suicide for Marshall Applewhite in San Diego?

 

Do the deaths of these people validate their faiths as a truth, or even show that it isn't something that should be taken lightly? I don't think so; it just shows that people are willing to die for their belief, no matter how crazy or mellow they may be.

 

People die in the name of things all of the time.

 

So what? If Christianity is more popular, has more history, and has more events that were taken place in its name...SO WHAT? What does this do to strengthen the case that God exists? How is human support of an idea a marker of truth?

Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie? How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word

- why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different?

 

Because the argument from personal experience does not validate anything, only that you have had a personal experience with it. We knowi things weren't purposefully placed their to lie--that is nonsense unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and is a weak argument in that sentiment. We also don't need to take their word for it because we have actual pictures from space and are always studying it, and people who do believe those things are lies--idiots. No nicer way to put it, they are either idiots or don't want to see the truth to hide in their ignorance to remain blissful.

 

Also, Christianity is in decline. Religion in general, actually. But Islam will soon outnumber Christians, which are at 33% of the world population, with the rapid amount of numbers it is obtaining in terms of new believers, and will surpass Christianity by 2035, if I recall correctly.

 

I've seen plenty of tape recordings of an exorcism. I see nothing there that is evidence of a supernatural power. What specifically is there that can ONLY be explained by God?

Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual?

I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here -

Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.

 

The purpose of a lie is to get people to follow you. Simple. I can go out and make my own Religion, like Scientology, with their Thetan level ad all that nonsense.

 

If you can obtain followers by telling them Demons interact with us and possess us, when clearly these people who are "possessed" are mentally ill, and you can tell the masses that you got the demons out and helped the soul, why wouldn't you do it? People lie because of gullibility. People lie to gain prestige and wealth. People lie because people are stupid sheep that need a shepherd. That is why people--especially "exorcists" or people like Pat Robertson--lie.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.

 

So, basically, why would people die for their belief?

 

Well, why would 918 people drink the poisoned kool-AID at Jonestown?

Why would 74 members of a cult fight the US government to the death to defend their Messiah at Waco?

Why would 39 people commit suicide for Marshall Applewhite in San Diego?

Suicides because they're mentally unstable, peer pressure or otherwise. Waco was a massive F-up by the US government, and it is uncertain if the people inside the compound would've "fought to the death" - they died in a fire.

 

The biggest difference between your three examples and the apostles is the apostles death's were not self inflicted, and were proceeded by torture. Early Christians were hunted down by Romans, they weren't killing themselves. Crucifixion also takes a very long time, and is probably the most painful form of death I can think of.

 

 

So what? If Christianity is more popular, has more history, and has more events that were taken place in its name...SO WHAT? What does this do to strengthen the case that God exists? How is human support of an idea a marker of truth?

Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie? How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word

- why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different?

 

Because the argument from personal experience does not validate anything, only that you have had a personal experience with it. We knowi things weren't purposefully placed their to lie--that is nonsense unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and is a weak argument in that sentiment. We also don't need to take their word for it because we have actual pictures from space and are always studying it, and people who do believe those things are lies--idiots. No nicer way to put it, they are either idiots or don't want to see the truth to hide in their ignorance to remain blissful.

You know, because Photoshop and CGI don't exist. We still ridicule people with evidence of "flying saucers" even if they do manage to get a photo of it.

 

 

I've seen plenty of tape recordings of an exorcism. I see nothing there that is evidence of a supernatural power. What specifically is there that can ONLY be explained by God?

Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual?

I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here -

Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.

 

The purpose of a lie is to get people to follow you. Simple. I can go out and make my own Religion, like Scientology, with their Thetan level ad all that nonsense.

 

If you can obtain followers by telling them Demons interact with us and possess us, when clearly these people who are "possessed" are mentally ill, and you can tell the masses that you got the demons out and helped the soul, why wouldn't you do it? People lie because of gullibility. People lie to gain prestige and wealth. People lie because people are stupid sheep that need a shepherd. That is why people--especially "exorcists" or people like Pat Robertson--lie.

And the Catholic priest speaking in the video firsthand about exorcisms has no wealth, was very reluctant to take on the job, and has very little prestige outside of the church he serves as a pastor to (unless he is asked to speak, then the people that gather for it remember his name for the 15 minutes after he gets done speaking).


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.

 

So, basically, why would people die for their belief?

 

Well, why would 918 people drink the poisoned kool-AID at Jonestown?

Why would 74 members of a cult fight the US government to the death to defend their Messiah at Waco?

Why would 39 people commit suicide for Marshall Applewhite in San Diego?

Suicides because they're mentally unstable, peer pressure or otherwise. Waco was a massive F-up by the US government, and it is uncertain if the people inside the compound would've "fought to the death" - they died in a fire.

 

Who are you to say that they are mentally unstable? They are doing what they believed in. According to you we should respect people who have beliefs.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ever a thread needed a version of Wikipedia's Three revert rule, it's this one. This is nothing more than two people contesting to see who can shout 'You're wrong!' the loudest.

 

Actually, it's one side yelling "Youre wrong! And here's why..." and it's another side yelling "You're wrong...so there!"


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you to say that they are mentally unstable? They are doing what they believed in. According to you we should respect people who have beliefs.

The bigger point I'm defending, in case you've lost sight of it, is that your pasta parody isn't a religion.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread is knocking on the tl;dr size, so i will just reply to the first post :P

 

I am an atheist. Personally hate religion, don't in any way criticise people for being religious, i just personally feel it does less good than bad. I see a lot of things, for example homophobia, being given an "acceptable" status. If i'm a homophobic atheist i would be portrayed as much worse than a homophobic theist, because i am a homophobic without any reasoning. I don't see that as fair, discrimination is discrimination in my eyes. This doesn't just apply to homophobia/Christianity, there are many similar cases where i feel socially unacceptable behavior becomes acceptable when tagged with a religious belief.

 

I don't really feel like there is any sort of evidence available (currently) to prove the existence of any god. Holy balls i have looked, just never had success in finding any. Meh. Pretty much all i have to say :P

 

I'll just leave this here...

As an outspoken atheist I am subjected to an inordinate amount of nonsensical loaded questions with fallacious premises. My beliefs regarding God are also constantly the focus of very strange and unfounded assumptions' date=' often the result of simple ignorance but also quite frequently the result malicious distortions made utterly knowingly by those in positions of authority purportedly derived from the divine.

 

To address all such loaded questions and bizarre assumptions in a single video would be a task too great for any one atheist, even with my "old school" director's account, which enables me to post videos exceeding ten minutes in length. However, there are two recurring bits of abominable miscomprehension that are in dire need of addressing.

 

The first is the misnomer of "non-believer" that we atheists all-too-often hear and all-too-often accept. I daresay many of us wear it as something of a badge of honor, but the term contains within it a tacit admission of a theocentric world. Atheists, like all other people, believe and disbelieve in a great number of things. I personally believe in concepts freedom and truth and beauty and all that jazz. I also believe in concretions like the blueness of the sky or the texture of a stucco ceiling. I disbelieve in concepts like fascism and religion and two wrongs make a right. I disbelieve in purported concretions like Santa Claus and Goblins. I disbelieve in God both as a concept and a purported concretion.

 

So, I am both a believer and a non-believer. It merely depends on the context, the subject, the narrative. If the subject is Santa Claus as a concept, then I am a believer. If the subject is Santa Claus as a purported concretion, then I am a non-believer.

To accept the label of non-believer without any contextual clues or any predefined subject as non-belief in God by default is to give the concept undue credence. By admitting the God question so important that belief or non-belief in him trumps all other beliefs or non-beliefs is to give him undue importance. For "believer" to be the center of a Christian's identity is perfectly sensible and sensical, but for "non-believer" to be the center of an atheist identity is ridiculous outside of the context of debating theists. We are atheists. Atheist is a word which means that we lack a belief in deities—and that's all it should or shall ever mean. Whether or not we are non-believers should always depend on the context of the word and if the word is without context we should not acknowledge it as meaning anything. The next time you are called a non-believer, you're response should be, "A non-believer in what?"

 

The second of the inglorious sophistries I've made this video in hopes of correcting is this silly notion that atheists have rejected God. Now, of course we have rejected God as a concept or an idea, just as most of us with good sense reject communism and dictatorships. We have not, however, rejected God in the sense that one rejects a parent who was never there or a friend who betrayed us. We don't believe in God, and to reject him in that sense, belief in him is an absolute prerequisite.

 

Certain theists believe, even after being corrected on this point, that we are deceiving ourselves—that we genuinely do believe in God, but reject him because we want to be able to free ourselves from his will. In other words, we disbelieve in him so that we can disobey him.

 

This argument holds no water for one simple reason. No idea, regardless of how vile or wicked it might be, has suffered from the idea of being divinely willed. Hitler claimed to be the chosen of God. Albert Fish, who cannibalized children, was a devout Christian who believed that angels would have intervened to save his victims if God had thought his crimes wrong. If we really wanted to do evil, God would not stand in our way—we could make him condone it, just as Christian Scientists make him condone not-treating disease and the Opus Dei sect of Catholics make him condone self-mutilation. God's will is largely controlled, for all practical purposes, by the will of his believers. And if atheists really wanted to do whatever they wanted, they'd not bother with atheism—they would just say that God approved of whatever behaviors they indulged in.

 

We don't believe in God because there is no pressing reason to believe in God. It's really quite simple and requires little in the way of further explanation.[/quote']


GuidesForScapers.png

 

Legalize baby punching. Tax and regulate it. Punch babies erry day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how much the lack of knowledge about religion shows through in atheist manifestos.

 

Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

 

Secondly - Opus dei doesn't condone self-mutilation. It's heartening to know that watching a fictional novel can tell you all you need to know about the organization. :rolleyes:


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how much the lack of knowledge about religion shows through in atheist manifestos.

 

Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

Theist != Catholic.

 

 

Secondly - Opus dei doesn't condone self-mutilation. It's heartening to know that watching a fictional novel can tell you all you need to know about the organization. :rolleyes:

Agreed with most of that quote, thought it was worth posting. May not be 100% accurate, but i feel it addresses a lot of different things that can bother me.


GuidesForScapers.png

 

Legalize baby punching. Tax and regulate it. Punch babies erry day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

I accept that de jure discrimination doesn't exist. However:

De facto discrimination definitely does exist. Would it be acceptable for a private company to 'Um' and 'Arr' over whether to employ a homosexual simply because of his sexuality? No.

 

I'm not claiming religion does more bad than good, just playing Devil's Advocate. There seems to be some disconnect with what the church preaches, and what it actually approves of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly - the catholic church is not homophobic. I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted. The official teaching of the catholic church is that being gay has no bearing on whether or not you go to heaven, and indeed we are taught to love all humans regardless of their sexual orientation, as we are all children of God.

I accept that de jure discrimination doesn't exist. However:

De facto discrimination definitely does exist. Would it be acceptable for a private company to 'Um' and 'Arr' over whether to employ a homosexual simply because of his sexuality? No.

 

I'm not claiming religion does more bad than good, just playing Devil's Advocate. There seems to be some disconnect with what the church preaches, and what it actually approves of.

 

 

First link: Catholic charities don't allow unmarried couples to adopt. Since a gay marriage cannot be condoned from a catholic perspective, denying their services to a gay couple is no different then denying the child to an unmarried couple.

second link: That's the teaching of the chuch, yes. Any straight priests who intent to visit straight strip clubs would also be asked to leave the priesthood.

Third link: Don't have time to listen at the moment, perhaps you'd care to paraphrase?

 

Here's the thing with your last sentence - it's practically never simply because of sexuality. If someone is gay, it is against the morals of the church to discriminate against them in any way because of that fact alone, as there's nothing wrong with being gay.

 

However - I'll use the drug example again. Would you refuse to allow a drug addict to stay in your house? Probably not. Would you refuse to allow them to stay in your house if they were going to be doing drugs in your house? You may well.

 

If there's any disconnect, it's because people are unfamiliar with what the church actually teaches, which is certainly commonplace.

 

EDIT: Actually, I watched a bit of the video.

 

The issue there is that these gay people attending church are actively committing moral sin by engaging in gay sexual activity. It has nothing to do with the state of them being attracted to the same sex, rather then acting on it.

 

The interview with the gay man about two minutes in, where he talks about "the church losing touch with the wants of its congregation". That quote, to me, demonstrates a functional disconnect in regards to the idea of the purpose of the church.

 

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?


maulmachine4.png

Corporeal Drops:2xHoly elixers

Bandos Drops: Bcp(soloed) 5x hilts 8x tassets

Armadyl Drops:Armadyl Hilt(trio)

Zamorak Drops: 2xZamorakian spear 3x Steam battlestaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

Yes. That's the job of the vatican - to study scripture and logic to infer God's will.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

 

That's a good point, I met a guy who once said that if it wasn't for god he would've killed many people because he was afraid of going to hell when he died. Another person I once met said that atheists can't have morals because "if they don't believe in the god that gives morals, how could they have them?". So my question is why do so many people assume that non religious people are not moral.


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you to say that they are mentally unstable? They are doing what they believed in. According to you we should respect people who have beliefs.

The bigger point I'm defending, in case you've lost sight of it, is that your pasta parody isn't a religion.

 

Why not? Because the prophet of Pastafarianism intended for it to be a "parody"?

1.) How do you know that this is his actual intent, instead of false information that you found on Wikipedia?

2.) Why does his intent affect whether or not anyone else can deem the ideas worthy of being a religion to follow?

 

Does that mean that if I go back in time and suggest Christianity as a joke before anything comes about, that Christianity cannot be a religion?

 

 

 

I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted.

 

Who are you to criticize people for not refuting arguments? You are the grand master of saying ridiculous things that I refute and then never acknowledging my points.

 

 

I never said the fact that people died for something made it inherently right - but it does at least indicate there is powerful evidence to believe it's true.

 

Then every religion is true, along with Nazism, Marxism, and devil worship. Also I'm sure there are some psychos out there who died in the name of the voices they heard in their head. People have died in the name of Japan, is Japan the best country? Hell people have died for basically everything. People have died due to their scientific beliefs. I guess everything is true then?

 

And why would they believe a lie? They were right there - they would have been the first ones to call bs if something was wrong.

 

Why are there people who believe in Jesus and people who believe in Muhammad? Are both then true?

 

Of course humans don't have inate lie-detection - but generally we believe things that are true, or at least when we have reasonable evidence of such. You're still not answering my question - these people died for Jesus right when these events were occuring. If Jesus was a fraud, surely they would have been the first to know - and why then would they have laid their lives on the line for that?

 

Once gain, I don't see anyone being martyred for pastafarianism.

 

First of all, I'm not sure that theres really evidence that any of the disciples died for Jesus, or that Jesus even ever existed.

 

Secondly, why would people have died for Muhammad?

 

Thirdly, why would people have died for Hitler if his cause wasn't worth supporting? Better fire up the gas chambers.

 

 

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The church does not exist to please its followers. It does not exist to cave into populist agendas. The chuch has, and will continue to, taken unpopular stances on important issues, precisely because absolute god-given morality surpasses base human wants and desires.

 

And who says their morality is god given? The church?

Yes. That's the job of the vatican - to study scripture and logic to infer God's will.

And what makes the Vatican so special that it gets to set its own set of rules in regards to what it finds moral and immoral?

 

To take your example about drug addicts, let's assume an employer takes on a homosexual as an employee. He then brings his gay partner into work and they kiss, as heterosexuals would, in the workplace. The employer has no right to say, "I think practicing homosexuality is a sin, so stop doing it in my workplace", because this would (rightly) be defined as homophobic and in breach if equality laws. The only way the employer can stop them is by saying, "We don't allow romantic realtionships of any sort in the workplace". In other words, heterosexuals are also not allowed either, not because of any issue regarding morality or sin, but because having partners in the workplace distracts them from doing what they are there for - work.

 

If a gay couple walks into an adoption agency, whether it's Christian or otherwise, why is it OK for the owners of that establishment to decide that because they happen to be gay, they are somehow more incapable of doing what they were at the adoption centre for than a heterosexual couple?

 

So long as a homosexual couple can do the difficult job of raising a child in a secure and loving environment as well as a heterosexual couple, why do Christians suddenly gain the moral highground simply for the fact they're Christian and happen to feel that practicing homosexuality is wrong? Such freedoms are not given to other people in society, and I would actually argue it's quite selfish on the owners' part for denying that child a good opportunity to move on into a new, stable home because of their own personal convictions.

 

What makes religion so special that it deserves its own special clauses when dictating what is and isn't morally correct, that the rest of us clearly don't understand because similar rights aren't bestowed on us?

 

"I don't agree with Action X because of my religion" is no different to saying "I don't agree with Action X because I don't think it's right", in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

While its impossible to know exactly who, or what God is (other than the trivial "love" answer), I believe I have found photographic evidence that God exists

[hide]

ultimate-spaghetti-ay-1875838-l.jpg

 

:twss:

[/hide]


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be impossible to know who or what (a) God is, or if he exists at all, but at least we can know with absolute certainty what his opinion is on any possible issue. :unsure:

----

Anyway.

 

Why do you (you=anyone religious) think there is a soul? Where is it, how does it communicate with the body, and what does it actually do? I personally enjoyed this essay as an attack on the concept of a soul.

 

Why do miracles always seem to have a possible naturalistic explanation? God seems to have something against amputees.


This signature is intentionally left blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

 

And to most people, that is god. And the way I used to think. But then I took a philosophy class. That put me more in the agnostic category. I am all for science and whatnot, but at the moment, there are some things out there that can not be explained without the existence of a god. Mainly the first nanoseconds after the big bang. It can't be explained at the moment, putting god creating the universe on equal footing with all the other explanation for those first few instance of existence. Explicitly stating he doesn't exist is not being fair and open-minded, but so is saying he does exist and being close-minded.

 

God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.

 

And if you want some fun reading, read some Anselm. I stuck a bit of his writing below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III (Proslogium).

God cannot be conceived not to exist. ‑‑God is that, than which

nothing greater can be conceived. ‑‑That which can be conceived

not to exist is not God.

AND it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to

exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be

conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be

conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater

can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than

which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an

irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than

which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even

be conceived not to exist;. and this being thou art, O Lord, our God.

So truly, therefore, dost thou exist, O Lord, my God, that thou canst

not be conceived not to exist; and rightly.

 

If that doesn't make sense, here is an explanation.

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

 

And to most people, that is god. And the way I used to think. But then I took a philosophy class. That put me more in the agnostic category. I am all for science and whatnot, but at the moment, there are some things out there that can not be explained without the existence of a god. Mainly the first nanoseconds after the big bang. It can't be explained at the moment, putting god creating the universe on equal footing with all the other explanation for those first few instance of existence. Explicitly stating he doesn't exist is not being fair and open-minded, but so is saying he does exist and being close-minded.

 

What do you think agnosticism is? Because it isn't a "middle ground" between theism and atheism. If you say "I believe God does exist" then you are a theist. If you say anything else, then you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not a statement about your belief about the existence of God, it is a statement about whether you think the question of God can ever be answered. If you don't think we can ever find the answer, then you are an agnostic. But you can still either choose to believe in God or not believe in God. I have met agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

 

Secondly, so what if we can't answer some questions right now? I have two points to make to this logic. First of all, 200 years ago, we couldn't answer the question "Where did humans come from?" Now we have evolution. Why should we just continue to substitute God for our unknown information?

 

My second point is as follows: What came before God? You're basically saying that the universe MUST have an explanation, but why doesn't God need an explanation? If you think God can exist without an explanation, then why couldn't the universe exist without an explanation?

God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.

 

Do you think we could possibly ever know if there is a god? Could we find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.