Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Religon for the weak minded?Follow

#77 Feb 12 2005 at 2:26 PM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
Kelvy, we know anything goes in the Church of Latter Day Kelvyquayo. Smiley: wink2
#78 Feb 12 2005 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
religion for the weak minded?

hardly. there are thing that happen that cannot be explained. people have fallen out of airplanes during ww2 and hit solid ground and lived. poltergiest, the movie was based on a true story. the scientiest that worked with the real woman the story was based on could prove the presence of "something", but could not define what that somethign was, or weather it was sentient.

the Bible itself is a collection of stroies for various people written in differant times that all speak of a single man, and a group of people who followed him around. massive work of fiction prepetuated by many differant people from various places that all follow a timeline? with no variations of the name of this person or his folowers?
the Bibile speaks of a real person. weather or not you believe the stories as a fact, or misinterpted events is unprovable. what is provable is the names, dates, and places mentioned in this collection of stories.

cave drawings from prehistoric times relate to "gods" of sorts from before man even had a language.

the preponderance of evidence, even though there is no way to actually prove the existance of this person without an actual body, would lead the most scientific amoung you to atleast be unable to rule out the possibility of God as atleast a viable theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------

that said, lets disscuss the falicy of man. all men and women on the planet.

we all try to define god in our own immage. that is to say. we try to define perfection nn our own immage. if your skinn is a differnant color than mine, you are not as good as i am. if you think some way other than what i think, your thought process is wrong. if you do not worship whatever the way i worship whatever, you are worshiping the worng way.

if you dont have a capitolist style government based on democracy, you are evil and oppressive.

if you think Jesus Christ was the embodiemnt of God, and not just a prophet, like Mohammad, you are an infidel and need to die.

we all do it. and within that thought process, we disreguard anything that points to the contrary of our perfection. the more egotistical you are, the more likely you are going to believe there is not, nor ever was anything superrior to yourself. athiest. dictator. tyrant. Hitler. Mousilini.

we ALL follow this path to some degree or another. ALL of us. you see a homeless person on the street, you dissmiss him as lesser than yourself with comments like "he could have a job if he wanted one", or "he put himself there, it is his fault" without even knowing anything about his particular situation.

you see a black teen sititng on a bus bench in front of a store, you think "he is a criminal", when you know nothign about him.

you laugh at jokes about disabeled or mentally ill people because it makes you feel good. at an inner level, that person demonstraits your superiority. he justifies you. and the more you belittle him, the higher you raise yourself above him.

the ultimate arrogance of this mindset is denying the possibility of God himself. to declair there is nothing above yourself.

your professor, calling people "weak minded" for believeing in something higher than themselves is a perfect example of "creating god in your own immage".

it is not the "weak minded" religious people who need the most help here, God or no God, it is your professor for being so shortsighted and limited as to think he is all there is.

i pity athiest.

i also condem any academic instructor who usses his position to steer students down a narrow, limited thought process. "creating god in our own immage" is exactly why blacks didnt used to be able to eat with white peoople. why "christians" discriminate against gays.

WHY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of HUMAN BEINGS have been BUTCHERD throughout history.

your professor is a prime example of the ignorace and arrogance that limits our species form evolving ot a higher mind set.

i am not saying every one should believe in God, but i am saying no one should rule out anything, or raise themselves above anyone else. this is the very ignorance and arrogance that has led to so much pain and suffering through out history, and even today inthe middle east. you close your mind to possiblilities, you put blinders on and limit your potential.

your professor is limmiting YOUR potential with his ARROGANCE
#79 Feb 12 2005 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
***
1,213 posts
Shadowrelm wrote:
Yada Yada CAPITALS more crap, stupid stuff CAPITALS


Very nice, now if you don't mind go back to your play pen and let the grown ups talk.
#80 Feb 12 2005 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
that was actually a good post IMO. If one chooses to calculate the "bad hand-writing" of the post. ..or maybe it's just this bong hit talking..
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#81 Feb 12 2005 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,213 posts
I didn't actually read the post and I never will read anything from shadowrealm until he learns proper spelling and decent grammar and ditches those awful fuc[i][/i]ing CAPITALS.
#82 Feb 12 2005 at 11:17 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Religions see their god as unfallable, the "God" can do no wrong. Most religions also see homosexuality as a flaw, a mistake, its not supposed to happen. IF your "God" made us, and you say homosexuality is a flaw, your saying your god screwed up, he made a mistake, completely disproving that everything you say about your "God".


This is why it's important to research before you comment on a topic.

1. In Christianity, God gives you a choice, hence you being able to choose not to believe in Him. Anyone with basic knowledge of religion would know that.

2. That only proves you know nothing about my religion, and make Aethist look foolish in general. Why do you guys like to comment on stuff you know nothing about?
#83 Feb 13 2005 at 12:57 AM Rating: Decent
which brings up the point that the choice that god gives man, namely worship me in the manner my priests tell you to or go to hell and spend forever and ever in torment and suffering, is kind of hard to accept as having come from a kind and loving entity.
#84 Feb 13 2005 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
which brings up the point that the choice that god gives man, namely worship me in the manner my priests tell you to or go to hell and spend forever and ever in torment and suffering, is kind of hard to accept as having come from a kind and loving entity.


Another ridiculous statement made by someone that barely knows anything about the Christian/Catholic religion.

1. The Holy Bible is the "guide" to how you should worship God, not priest. Priest are religious leaders, and like every other leader they can be wrong, heck..they can be hypocrits(and it's easy to spot the hypocrits).
#85 Feb 13 2005 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
As opposed to religeon for the strong minded?
#86 Feb 13 2005 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Religion is for whoever chooses to partake in it.
#87 Feb 13 2005 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
NfamousC, so the people who wrote the bible did not also perform the functions of a priest? and as to not knowing anything about the catholicism, you're an idiot. i served as a cantor for 4 years at one particular church and 2 years at another(simultaneously, i admit). if you care to question my knowledge of the religion, do so, rather than spout your own lack of understanding. in catholic dogma the bible is not a 'guide', it is the literal word of god. the priest performs the functions of reiterating and interpreting said 'word', and if there is a guide, it is he(or she for you crazy episcopals).

the fact that your next post states that religion is for anyone who wants to take part in it(or word to that effect) shows how much your own personal beliefs color what you percieve as catholic tradition.

and last, i'm hoping you were only kidding about that whole '...it just means you fear my intellegent arguements.' otherwise, spell check is your friend.
#88 Feb 14 2005 at 4:49 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
NfamousC, so the people who wrote the bible did not also perform the functions of a priest? and as to not knowing anything about the catholicism, you're an idiot. i served as a cantor for 4 years at one particular church and 2 years at another(simultaneously, i admit). if you care to question my knowledge of the religion, do so, rather than spout your own lack of understanding. in catholic dogma the bible is not a 'guide', it is the literal word of god. the priest performs the functions of reiterating and interpreting said 'word', and if there is a guide, it is he(or she for you crazy episcopals).

the fact that your next post states that religion is for anyone who wants to take part in it(or word to that effect) shows how much your own personal beliefs color what you percieve as catholic tradition.

and last, i'm hoping you were only kidding about that whole '...it just means you fear my intellegent arguements.' otherwise, spell check is your friend.



Now, here's a good one...

1. I never said that the Bible wasn't the literal words of God(it's not, really..The Commandments..maybe, but "And Jesus wept" is not what God said).

2. Religion IS for anyone that wants to partake/join in, sinners, converters WHATEVER. Are you saying that only a chosen few are allowed to join in religion?

3. Most(if not all) the people in the Bible performed the functions of a priest, however, I never said they didn't...What does that have to do with anything?

4. While you may have served in a church for 4 years, that means nothing, obviously your service was in vain(if you were in fact, attempting to learn anything). I would think that you would have learned to capitalize the word "God"..

5. I never questioned you knowledge of religion.

6. In the end, it is you, not me, spouting their lack of understanding of religion.

7. My signature IS in fact, a joke. Congratulations on being the first to note that.

8. I win.
#89 Feb 14 2005 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Religion is for people with nothing better to do on Sunday mornings (like sleeping off the Saturday-night hangover).
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#90 Feb 14 2005 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
religion for the weak minded?

hardly. there are thing that happen that cannot be explained. people have fallen out of airplanes during ww2 and hit solid ground and lived.


I don't see where that has much to do with the topic at hand. Sure, it's a one-in-a-million chance of surviving a fall like that without injury (of course, Terry Pratchett says that a one-in-a-million chance will happen 99% of the time).

I just don't see the tie-in to religion. Every random inexplicable occurrence does not necessarily point to the existence of God.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#91 Feb 14 2005 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
SamiraX wrote:
I don't see where that has much to do with the topic at hand. Sure, it's a one-in-a-million chance of surviving a fall like that without injury (of course, Terry Pratchett says that a one-in-a-million chance will happen 99% of the time).

I just don't see the tie-in to religion. Every random inexplicable occurrence does not necessarily point to the existence of God.

On the flip-side, any random inexplicable occurence is usually pointed to as proof that He does exist. Logic need not apply in any religious discussion.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#92 Feb 14 2005 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
Look, when something happens that defies logic and scientific reason, you HAVE to give God the credit, because there is not other excuse.
#94 Feb 14 2005 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Just want to add something to this.

Palpitus wrote:

Theism: God exists
Atheism: God does not exist
Agnosticism: God may or may not exist (depending on definition of agnosticism)


I don't really agree with your definition of agnosticism (yeah, I'm aware you put a conditional on it. I'm going to explain the other condition). I also think that's largely why many people get confused over the whole athiest/agnostic positions and tend to blend them.


Theism, as you stated, is an absolute believe in some specific divinity. "I believe in God". "I believe in Thor". "I believe in the Great Pumpkin". All are exampes of Theism. Remember though that theism is a "personal" belief in a very specific supernatural thing. A vague belief or acceptance that there may be some divine or supernatural force that we can't explain is *not* theism. It's actually closer to agnosticism (depening on *why* you believe something).

Atheism is the exact opposite. It is the specific belief that any given divine/supernatural force does not exist. An Athiest disbelieves *all* forms of Theism. So he doesn't just not believe in God. He believes there are no gods, spirits, paranormal stuff. None of it. Guess what? If you don't have that absolute of a non-belief in anything, then you aren't really an athiest. You may call youself one. You may even believe that's what you are, but you aren't.


Agnosticism is simply the position that since we can't prove or disprove God or gods, or anything supernatural, that it's pointless to argue about it. An agnostic, when asked if God exists, will typically take the position that it doesn't matter. If we can't determine if God exists, and there's no measurable effect from believing or not believing in God, then what's the point? Agnosticism is most definately *not* about not being able to make up your mind. The mind is made up. There's not enough evidence to support the presupposition that God exists, so therefore, from my perspective, he doesn't.


The real difference between agnosticism and atheism (and where you're partically right) is that the atheists believe is just that: A belief. It's just as arbitrary and absolute as the theists. The agnostic, on the other hand, if you could ever show him enough proof, would accept a given supernatural thing (like God perhaps) as fact. But with a lack of proof, and given a choice of making dramatic changes in his life based on something that can't be proven, or ignoring that belief and just living his life based on what he can see and hear around him, he'll chose the latter. Sometimes his own choices may match those of the theists, but he's not doing them for the same reasons. It's a subtle distinction, but it's pretty significant.

Whenever you hear someone make an argument that a lack of proof of God means that worship of God is silly and irrelevant, that person is an agnostic, not an atheist. Whenever someone does the "odds calculation" with regards to worship, he's an agnostic (when I go through each set of possible "truths" and actions I could take with those truths and conclude that my odds are as good or better not believing in a given god then picking one and believing in it, I'm exhibiting textbook agnosticism).


Lots of people confuse those though. We run into this alot in discussions like this when someone will inevitably identify themselves as an atheist, but do the odds thing I mentioned above as their reason for not believing in God. A theist will then counter that with the fact that atheism is just as much a religioius belief as theism is. Of course, that does not disprove the agnostic position (or the argument) at all, but it becomes an associative argument. Since atheism is just as arbitrary as theism, it's no better from a rational point of view. But the arguement was really about agnosticism, so it shouldn't have been hampered by the self-titled atheism of the poster.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Feb 15 2005 at 12:52 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,640 posts
I thought it was kinda funny how in class, someone on the con-religion side of the debate stated "common, a being create the whole universe? that's kind of hard to believe"

I was thinking "no matter how you look at it something had to come from nothingness, whether it be evolution or creationism" isn't that hard to believe? however, we know this is a fact, to me it's easier to believe one being started it all rather to believe many beings came into existence simultaniously.

If you are the only thing in existence, whatever you can dream up becomes reality because nothing exists, essentially you control what exists and what doesn't.(hard to explain)

that's just how i feel.

Edited, Tue Feb 15 00:52:24 2005 by melbolt
#96 Feb 15 2005 at 1:46 AM Rating: Good
**
781 posts
I hear tell that Sabo likes a can of Heinz Cream of Sumyung'Guy. Smiley: wink2
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 191 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (191)