Religion - is one better than another?

Message boards : Politics : Religion - is one better than another?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 23 · Next

AuthorMessage
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1458568 - Posted: 29 Dec 2013, 21:59:45 UTC - in response to Message 1458531.  

Perhaps Мишель could go and create his own thread on how the Nazi's are rational. He clearly doesn't have much of an argument as to why religion is not responsible for wars, otherwise he'd be talking about that and not the Nazi's.

That was not an argument about how the Nazis were rational. That was simply a comparison. Any totalitarian state which had as political aim the destruction of a group of people would have fitted. I used Nazis in this case because they are the most effective example.

And claiming that a discussion ends because someone brings up the Nazis is a fallacy. It might very well be that the use of Nazis serves a valid purpose within the discussion. I believe that it made a valid contribution, mostly because I did not try to compare anyone or anything with Nazism, which is what usually happens. I talked in specific about the rationality (or lack of it if you will) behind the Holocaust, a Nazi policy, and to a greater extend the psychology and thinking behind acts of mass murder.

Furthermore, I never said that religions are not responsible for wars, I said they are responsible along with the hundreds of other reasons humans go to war. And as for being the root cause behind a conflict, religion is nothing exceptional. Plenty of other motives play a just as big, if not bigger role when it comes to causing war. The idea that without religion the world would be a much more peaceful place is an idea I oppose because it is nonsense and any good look in your history book would have told you as much.

I'd like to add another reason why I oppose this idea, namely because such an argument tends to ignore the good religion has brought to this world. Religion is not just a cause of division and war, or it would have destroyed itself long ago. Religion is like having a government. In the wrong hands, it can be a disaster and indeed, result in conflict. But in the right hands, and for the most part it is in the right hands, it results in stability and peace. And then we don't even mention the contributions religion has made to science, art and culture. While yes, misguided leaders of the church have attempted to stop scientific progress, it was that same church to which we owe much of our knowledge on the Romans, it was the church that kept the flame of science alive in the dark ages and it was during the golden age of Islam that we made huge progress in medicine and other forms of science.

Hence, religion, despite its flaws, has produced more good than bad.
ID: 1458568 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1458587 - Posted: 29 Dec 2013, 22:49:38 UTC - in response to Message 1458568.  

Perhaps Мишель could go and create his own thread on how the Nazi's are rational. He clearly doesn't have much of an argument as to why religion is not responsible for wars, otherwise he'd be talking about that and not the Nazi's.

That was not an argument about how the Nazis were rational. That was simply a comparison. Any totalitarian state which had as political aim the destruction of a group of people would have fitted. I used Nazis in this case because they are the most effective example.

No, not really. They actually had little to do with anything. I am sure you could have bought up a better example.

And claiming that a discussion ends because someone brings up the Nazis is a fallacy. It might very well be that the use of Nazis serves a valid purpose within the discussion. I believe that it made a valid contribution, mostly because I did not try to compare anyone or anything with Nazism, which is what usually happens. I talked in specific about the rationality (or lack of it if you will) behind the Holocaust, a Nazi policy, and to a greater extend the psychology and thinking behind acts of mass murder.

Your argument really was reaching...nothing productive was brought to the debate by you using them as an example. Extremes aren't always the best examples to use, and they tend to put people off.

Furthermore, I never said that religions are not responsible for wars, I said they are responsible along with the hundreds of other reasons humans go to war. And as for being the root cause behind a conflict, religion is nothing exceptional. Plenty of other motives play a just as big, if not bigger role when it comes to causing war. The idea that without religion the world would be a much more peaceful place is an idea I oppose because it is nonsense and any good look in your history book would have told you as much.

Yet all you could do is produce Nazis. Why don't you go and find a better example in your history book.

I'd like to add another reason why I oppose this idea, namely because such an argument tends to ignore the good religion has brought to this world. Religion is not just a cause of division and war, or it would have destroyed itself long ago. Religion is like having a government. In the wrong hands, it can be a disaster and indeed, result in conflict. But in the right hands, and for the most part it is in the right hands, it results in stability and peace. And then we don't even mention the contributions religion has made to science, art and culture. While yes, misguided leaders of the church have attempted to stop scientific progress, it was that same church to which we owe much of our knowledge on the Romans, it was the church that kept the flame of science alive in the dark ages and it was during the golden age of Islam that we made huge progress in medicine and other forms of science.

Hence, religion, despite its flaws, has produced more good than bad.

Yes, because nothing says you support scientific discovery more than burning scientists alive.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1458587 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1458593 - Posted: 29 Dec 2013, 23:37:44 UTC - in response to Message 1458568.  
Last modified: 29 Dec 2013, 23:38:42 UTC

I'm trying hard to think of any good, that religion has ever done. Nope, I must have blinked! Only today there was a bombing, seemingly in the 'name of Islam', in Volgograd. It was probably not a good idea to antagonise a 'Bear' (especially a Russian one) in doing this....bears may be slow to move at times, but when they really move, they're relentless. The Islamic religion seems to be actively waging it's own brand of war (a war without uniforms or any declarations....make of that, what you may) on virtually every continent. For what is claimed to be a peaceful religion, it certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with having the blood of innocent people on it's hands.

I'm sorry, but to say that, saying 'the Church' kept alive the flame of science, is complete and utter rubbish....the only flames the Church kept alive, were those used at the stake! The flames used against anyone who questioned. The Inquisition was notorious for using threats of any kind of debasement to silence those who asked questions. Control of the many, is the common link in religion. I don't need to belong to any 'church' or religion to follow something like the Ten Commandments or some 'teachings'. That, is a matter of personal ethics, not, religion.

For what it is worth, I firmly believe that this planet would be a far better place without religion. If you like, you can put me firmly in the camp of Richard Dawkins. Actually, thats pretty good.....he was in Dr Who.
Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 1458593 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1458594 - Posted: 29 Dec 2013, 23:40:52 UTC - in response to Message 1458587.  

No, not really. They actually had little to do with anything. I am sure you could have bought up a better example.

Well, there are plenty of communist regimes that purged their population along ideological lines. Or nationalists that went after ethnic groups within their country that were not deemed part of the 'nation'.


Your argument really was reaching...nothing productive was brought to the debate by you using them as an example. Extremes aren't always the best examples to use, and they tend to put people off.

You say that religion allows people to dehumanize others, Ive pointed out that political ideologies can do the same, Nazism being the most extreme example of it, given that extreme racism was part of its ideology and the regime actively pursued a policy of indoctrinating people, but communism and nationalism or tribalism can do the same thing. Communism dehumanizes anyone that is not part of the workers class, nationalism dehumanizes people from other countries and tribalism taken to an extreme results in things like Rwanda or South Sudan. But really, anything that constructs a clear 'in' and 'out' group is capable of dehumanizing if taken to an extreme. You can see it with hooligans that 'support' a sports team but really just go there to beat up people from the other sports team. They have no problem hurting other people simply because they are part of another sports team.

Furthermore, I never said that religions are not responsible for wars, I said they are responsible along with the hundreds of other reasons humans go to war. And as for being the root cause behind a conflict, religion is nothing exceptional. Plenty of other motives play a just as big, if not bigger role when it comes to causing war. The idea that without religion the world would be a much more peaceful place is an idea I oppose because it is nonsense and any good look in your history book would have told you as much.

Pretty sure I gave you a list of at least 30+ conflicts that had little if nothing to do with religion. That was in response to your boast that for each non religious conflict I could find you could counter with 10 conflicts in which religion does play a major role or was the sole reason for the conflict. I'm still waiting for that list. In case you need a reminder, here are all the other examples Ive already mentioned.

"WW1, WW2, every Communist revolution, Hutu's vs Tutsi's, Crimean War, Boxer Rebellion, Opium War, Vietnam War, every war fought after the Peace of Westphalia on the European continent until the French revolution, Napoleonic Wars, American civil war, American revolution, war of 1812, every colonial war in Africa, Boer War, French war in Vietnam, Dutch war in Indonesia, Dutch war against the English, Roman wars against the barbarians invasions as well as all the wars of expansion they fought."

Happy?

Yes, because nothing says you support scientific discovery more than burning scientists alive.

I said dark ages. The church did not burn scientists during the dark ages, that happened later. Even then, the amount of scientists they killed pales to the amount of scientists they produced in all those monasteries. Or all the scientific knowledge they managed to preserve and in some cases even expand upon. Do not forget that for the longest time the church was the only institution that was capable of building and maintaining schools. Was the church perfect when it came to science? No, definitely not, the main focus of the church never lay with science. But had it not been there, it is very likely that we would have lost even more of the knowledge the Romans and the Greeks had build up during their reign. Much more of their knowledge would have been destroyed during the dark ages if not for the church.

Besides, the Catholic church was not the only church around. Like I said, the golden age of Islam saw an incredibly amount of scientific output, and the Eastern Orthodox Church was for its time even more advanced when it came to science and maintaining the Greek and Roman knowledge.

So yeah, what the church did to the unfortunate scientists that were exiled or killed or otherwise prevented from doing their job was wrong. But put it in perspective and the church is suddenly not the backward anti progressive institution that some people pretend it is. At least not for its entire history.
ID: 1458594 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 27470
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1458599 - Posted: 29 Dec 2013, 23:59:12 UTC

If you really want a good example of the link between religion and war then The Crusades would be the best example out there.

Personally I can't understand why any rational person would want to depend on any religion under any circumstances.

Cheers.
ID: 1458599 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1458600 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 0:04:13 UTC - in response to Message 1458593.  
Last modified: 30 Dec 2013, 0:08:56 UTC

I'm trying hard to think of any good, that religion has ever done. Nope, I must have blinked! Only today there was a bombing, seemingly in the 'name of Islam', in Volgograd. It was probably not a good idea to antagonise a 'Bear' (especially a Russian one) in doing this....bears may be slow to move at times, but when they really move, they're relentless. The Islamic religion seems to be actively waging it's own brand of war (a war without uniforms or any declarations....make of that, what you may) on virtually every continent. For what is claimed to be a peaceful religion, it certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with having the blood of innocent people on it's hands.

The United States for the past 70 years has had its hand in every major war or conflict around the world. It has supported and still supports dictators all around the world, it has allowed torture against prisoners, it spies on most of the world, it assassinates those it deems it enemies, including US citizens without granting these people fair trial and in the past decade alone it waged two illegal wars of aggression. For a country that claims to be all about democracy, liberty, justice and the rule of law it certainly has a hard time following those principles themselves. Are we to conclude from this that the US government is the enemy of all free people on this planet?


I'm sorry, but to say that, saying 'the Church' kept alive the flame of science, is complete and utter rubbish....the only flames the Church kept alive, were those used at the stake! The flames used against anyone who questioned. The Inquisition was notorious for using threats of any kind of debasement to silence those who asked questions. Control of the many, is the common link in religion. I don't need to belong to any 'church' or religion to follow something like the Ten Commandments or some 'teachings'. That, is a matter of personal ethics, not, religion.

Educate yourself

Yes, thats one of those nice Protestant myths, similar to the idea that Jews ate babies. Stake burnings were mostly used against people accused of witchcraft, and that tended to be women, not scientists. And only the Roman inquisition actively went after scientists as a result of the Protestant movements of those times. Most other inquisitions focused on going after Jews or heretics. All in all, the whole Inquisition and its impact is greatly overstated.
ID: 1458600 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1458601 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 0:07:43 UTC - in response to Message 1458599.  

If you really want a good example of the link between religion and war then The Crusades would be the best example out there.

Personally I can't understand why any rational person would want to depend on any religion under any circumstances.

Cheers.

The crusades are only a few conflicts. Sure, religion played a major role in those, but then again, I never denied that there was such a link. I'm just saying that link is not as important as some people seem to think.
ID: 1458601 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1458617 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 1:20:25 UTC - in response to Message 1458568.  
Last modified: 30 Dec 2013, 1:22:26 UTC

Perhaps Мишель could go and create his own thread on how the Nazi's are rational. He clearly doesn't have much of an argument as to why religion is not responsible for wars, otherwise he'd be talking about that and not the Nazi's.

That was not an argument about how the Nazis were rational. That was simply a comparison. Any totalitarian state which had as political aim the destruction of a group of people would have fitted. I used Nazis in this case because they are the most effective example.

And claiming that a discussion ends because someone brings up the Nazis is a fallacy. It might very well be that the use of Nazis serves a valid purpose within the discussion. I believe that it made a valid contribution, mostly because I did not try to compare anyone or anything with Nazism, which is what usually happens. I talked in specific about the rationality (or lack of it if you will) behind the Holocaust, a Nazi policy, and to a greater extend the psychology and thinking behind acts of mass murder.

Furthermore, I never said that religions are not responsible for wars, I said they are responsible along with the hundreds of other reasons humans go to war. And as for being the root cause behind a conflict, religion is nothing exceptional. Plenty of other motives play a just as big, if not bigger role when it comes to causing war. The idea that without religion the world would be a much more peaceful place is an idea I oppose because it is nonsense and any good look in your history book would have told you as much.

I'd like to add another reason why I oppose this idea, namely because such an argument tends to ignore the good religion has brought to this world. Religion is not just a cause of division and war, or it would have destroyed itself long ago. Religion is like having a government. In the wrong hands, it can be a disaster and indeed, result in conflict. But in the right hands, and for the most part it is in the right hands, it results in stability and peace. And then we don't even mention the contributions religion has made to science, art and culture. While yes, misguided leaders of the church have attempted to stop scientific progress, it was that same church to which we owe much of our knowledge on the Romans, it was the church that kept the flame of science alive in the dark ages and it was during the golden age of Islam that we made huge progress in medicine and other forms of science.

Hence, religion, despite its flaws, has produced more good than bad.

I have to say that I do agree that during the dark ages the church did keep alive the culture and knowledge of western civilization.
However It was in Ireland that it happend.
There is a book I have by Thomas Cahill called How the Irish saved civilization. Copyrighted in 1995.

Here is just a short blub from the inside jacket.

From the fall of Rome to the rise of Charlemage- " Dark ages"- Learning,Scholarship and cultuer disapeared from ther continent. The great heritage of western civilization- From the Greek and Roman classics toJewish and Christion works- Would have been utterly lost were it not for the Holy men and woman of unconquered Ireland.

In the book he goes on to say that the Monks and scribes of Ireland, Who were far removed from the despoilation of the continent. Translated and copyed the wests written treasuary. And then when Europe was stable. These same Monks and scribes spread the learning around.

Im sure the Byzantium Empire was also a store house of knowledge aslo. And seeing as they were around until 1453, Im sure they had a hand in educating western Europe too.

So there is at least one insatnce where religion did something good. How ever burning people at the stake for scientific ideas does negate that.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1458617 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17729
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1458644 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 4:56:16 UTC

Is there a religious war about to happen.

Anti-Shia propaganda threatens a sectarian civil war which will engulf the entire Muslim world
Anti-Shia hate propaganda spread by Sunni religious figures sponsored by, or based in, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, is creating the ingredients for a sectarian civil war engulfing the entire Muslim world.


Saudi Arabia gives Lebanon $3bn to bolster military
Wave of attacks have fuelled fears that Syria's neighbour could be slipping back towards full-blown sectarian conflict


And the troubles in Egypt.
By branding the entire Muslim Brotherhood as terrorists, General Sisi is adopting a well-tested tactic of past Egyptian dictators
ID: 1458644 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6682
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1458649 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 5:31:34 UTC

ES99 Said:
Extremes aren't always the best examples to use, and they tend to put people off.


ES99's Extreme Extremist HATING of GOD/Religion 'is' in EVIDENCE Here. Read The Extreme Hate She Spews against Religion in this thread. Got Data? It's All Below.

' '

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1458649 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1458651 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 5:40:52 UTC - in response to Message 1458649.  

ES99 Said:
Extremes aren't always the best examples to use, and they tend to put people off.


ES99's Extreme Extremist HATING of GOD/Religion 'is' in EVIDENCE Here. Read The Extreme Hate She Spews against Religion in this thread. Got Data? It's All Below.

' '

So What. Thats her opinion. You have yours. Only she is a lot more intellegent in expressing her opinion that you are in yours.. GOBBBA GOBBA GOOO. DUS YO GIT ME BROHIEM?
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1458651 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24551
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1458727 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 10:53:43 UTC - in response to Message 1458617.  

From the fall of Rome to the rise of Charlemage- " Dark ages"- Learning,Scholarship and cultuer disapeared from ther continent. The great heritage of western civilization- From the Greek and Roman classics to Jewish and Christion works- Would have been utterly lost were it not for the Holy men and woman of unconquered Ireland.

In the book he goes on to say that the Monks and scribes of Ireland, Who were far removed from the despoilation of the continent. Translated and copyed the wests written treasuary. And then when Europe was stable. These same Monks and scribes spread the learning around.


...that is until religion reared its ugly head once more, only this time, the results were devastating, the effects still reverberating over 300 years later.

William of Orange

Ain't religion grand!
ID: 1458727 · Report as offensive
Batter Up
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,860,347
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1458804 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 15:07:18 UTC - in response to Message 1458727.  

...that is until religion reared its ugly head once more,

I find it interesting that your avatar, Guy Fawkes, was a religious zealot executed for attempting to blow up the protestant British parliament.

Guy Fawkes day is celebrated to this day with protestants burning symbols of Catholicism. God bless the US Constitution for banning a state religion.
ID: 1458804 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24551
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1458805 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 15:09:04 UTC - in response to Message 1458804.  

Another one that takes the book by the cover. Saying that though, shame he didn't succeed :)
ID: 1458805 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1458807 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 15:13:32 UTC
Last modified: 30 Dec 2013, 15:46:35 UTC

All people are rational till it comes to discussing religion.

Once the the "big R" is invoked emotion takes charge. It doesn't matter if you "believe" or "disbelieve". Whether, as a "believer" you are Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu or if The Bastard Son of Black Mombasa the Snake God is your deity, rationality flies out the window when religion is concerned.

I had a "discussion" with Ozzfan some years ago when I stated that belief or disbelief were opposite sides of the same coin. i.e. One side could totally believe without definitive proof that a deity existed and the other side likewise could totally "disbelieve" without any definitive proof that it didn't.

My argument was that both sides could hold a firm belief (or disbelief) without any proof (or disproof) that would hold up in a Court of Law and therefore both were equal but opposite demonstrations of the same mind set

As is his wont, Ozzy tried to throw the burden of proof onto the believers but was likewise unable to offer any incontrovertible proof that a deity did NOT exist.

That is why threads like this are totally meaningless. From a truly logical point of view, NO religion is any better than another because there is no proof that any religion is the "true" religion (i.e. it prays to a god that actually exists). Likewise there is no proof that a deity does NOT exist.

Gary's "Thor" thread has as much legitimacy as any other "religious" thread I have seen on these boards, and who knows he may just be the one who's right.

T.A.
ID: 1458807 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1458817 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 15:29:01 UTC - in response to Message 1458807.  

My argument was that both sides could hold a firm belief (or disbelief) without any proof (or disproof) that would hold up in a Court of Law and therefore both were equal but opposite demonstrations of the same mind set

+lots of points.

I have come to a similar conclusion as well.
ID: 1458817 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24551
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1458851 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 16:41:34 UTC - in response to Message 1458819.  
Last modified: 30 Dec 2013, 16:48:55 UTC

Self-censored and out of order. Should have known better.
ID: 1458851 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1458865 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 17:31:25 UTC - in response to Message 1458649.  

ES99 Said:
Extremes aren't always the best examples to use, and they tend to put people off.


ES99's Extreme Extremist HATING of GOD/Religion 'is' in EVIDENCE Here. Read The Extreme Hate She Spews against Religion in this thread. Got Data? It's All Below.

' '

You don't read data very well do you?

I'll sum up the data here in this thread and in all threads I've posted in about religion for you. You can then go back and find the data there that supports what I say.

1) I don't believe in god. This is not an extreme view.
2) I don't hate religious people, I think they are a bit weird and I feel sorry for them. But I don't hate them. This is not an extreme view.
3) I know that religion has been behind a lot of evil acts in the world. This is not an extreme view. Its a fact. The only thing open for debate is just how much.
4) I don't care if people practice religion as long as they don't try to oppress me with it. As a female this is clearly not an extreme view, just a valid concern.
5) As a human being I don't care if people practice religion as long as they don't try to kill me over it. As someone who has grown up in a city that was first bombed by the IRA for years then bombed by Muslim extremists, this is a valid concern and not an extreme view. I have come close to being killed by religious extremists.
6) I think people would be better off without religion. Considering how many different religions there are, most of them are clearly wrong. This is not an extreme view. Its basic logic.

If I was an extreme atheist (whatever that means) as you claim without evidence, I hardly think that I would have been allowed to teach in all the Church Schools I have taught in over the years. My views are my views, yours are yours. I'm not going to hurt anyone over them (unlike thousands and thousands of religious people).

I actually can't think of one example where an atheist has tried to hurt someone simply because they are an atheist.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1458865 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1458866 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 17:33:21 UTC - in response to Message 1458685.  

Is there a religious war about to happen.

The Middle East has always been a hotbed of strife. I would judge that there is a risk of a religious based war at any one time out there.

ES99's Extreme Extremist HATING of GOD/Religion 'is' in EVIDENCE Here. Read The Extreme Hate She Spews against Religion in this thread. Got Data? It's All Below.

You all know Es is a friend of mine, but that statement is just simply untrue, and I can't let it pass without comment. What she does do, and do very well, is to give logical and reasoned debate in support of her views. It is not her fault if others around here do not have the same intellectual powers to respond in a likewise fashion, and have to resort to the sort of statement above. She is more than capable of robustly defending her corner, so I'll leave her to do so.

You have further dented your already fragile reputation by that outburst Dull.

I think we all know which person here is a hateful extremist. He makes my argument for me.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1458866 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15688
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1458871 - Posted: 30 Dec 2013, 17:58:53 UTC - in response to Message 1458807.  
Last modified: 30 Dec 2013, 18:20:44 UTC

I had a "discussion" with Ozzfan some years ago when I stated that belief or disbelief were opposite sides of the same coin. i.e. One side could totally believe without definitive proof that a deity existed and the other side likewise could totally "disbelieve" without any definitive proof that it didn't.

My argument was that both sides could hold a firm belief (or disbelief) without any proof (or disproof) that would hold up in a Court of Law and therefore both were equal but opposite demonstrations of the same mind set

As is his wont, Ozzy tried to throw the burden of proof onto the believers but was likewise unable to offer any incontrovertible proof that a deity did NOT exist.


You're (conveniently?) leaving out my viewpoints and not doing our conversation justice.

[Edit] I said that it is on the person making the claim to provide their proof, and that an Atheist doesn't claim there is no god [/edit], therefore it is not on the Atheist to disprove god's existence. I also said that Atheism isn't a belief as it is a lack of belief, which is why it is not the opposite side of the same coin. I also stated that there's a difference between belief (truth) and fact (evidence).

To state that an Atheist must prove their disbelief is of course foolish. Their lack of belief stems from a lack of evidence. Therefore it is not the result of a truth (belief) but a lack of facts (evidence).
ID: 1458871 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 23 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religion - is one better than another?


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.