God.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

These threads on religion really go no where. No one can argue for it because humans made religion and yet they want to argue something that goes beyond humanity without any evidence. On the other hand, the lack of evidence applies to any critics of religion as well. The answer really lies in a side of the argument that isn't so one-sided and perhaps the idea that one could honer that certain parts of religion are right, certain parts are wrong, all are right, or all are wrong. One can't trust religion 100% or mistrust religion 100% because neither have evidence. With any of the possibilities in mind, I always value a person having their rights of life, liberty, and property unless that person is trying to take someone else's life, liberty, or property without a justified cause (certain religions and their different treatment of others without any real justification). Now someone might ask me what if I just want to take someone's life, liberty, or property just for the sake of doing such an act without being justified. To me, this is considered a bad act because I use the simple logic that such an act is not the way I would want to be treated (with my life, liberty, or property taken away). If someone wants to be what I define as bad, be my guest. On top of my personal beliefs, I also believe that if you are good at being good or if you are good at being bad, a person chooses what path better suits them in life (what ever path a person believes would give them more life, liberty, and property [this doesn't mean that it would Actually happen]). If I was to come across a person who was willingly able to accept that they are bad and wanted to take my liberty for no reason, I value an eye for an eye, but only if it makes me get my life, liberty, or property back. There is no reason to seek vengeance if vengeance doesn't give you anything in return to get back to where you first were. For example, what's the use of killing someone who killed your family member when you obviously know that the person who died won't come back? Sure you would be even in the fact that you both have family members lost, but you are beneath where you started. If this bad person started this, he should be lower than you in status. Not on the same level of life, liberty, and property. Let's say that this bad guy was trying to also kill someone else, but I beat him up and save that someone else. I would have saved a person and gotten the bad guy imprisoned. The very thought that I saved a person (which would make me regret losing a family member less) and that getting the bad guy imprisoned (to stop him from ever killing during the time he is imprisoned) would make me feel above this bad guy (in this case, some would probably not feel even with the bad guy since you lost a loved one). I would say that a good guy or bad guy would only be satisfied with an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property. A good person would want an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property to stop the bad person from doing something bad again. On the other hand, the bad person would want the unproportional share of life, liberty, and property because he/she wants to lower everyone else's life, liberty, and property to be superior.

[Tails99]

Re: God.

The paragraph on the first post in summation:

God exists because he does.

Need more proof than that.

[mblavis7]

Re: God.

what makes me so angry about religion is people just blindly following without even remotely questioning whats going on or giving an attempt to learn.

religion has always been a way to control people by fear.

"hey. um. im the king. and your GOD told me that you guys all have to be roman catholic. or whatever. and if you dont, youll be forever damned in the eternal fires of hell!!!! i totally swear!"

thats how rulers have been for a long time.

hey look at our president for one example!

(dont mean to get into that subject)

if your gonna be religious, at least understand where youre coming from and dont sound like an ignorant, mentally blind, asshole.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: God.

what makes me so angry about religion is people just blindly following without even remotely questioning whats going on or giving an attempt to learn.

religion has always been a way to control people by fear.

"hey. um. im the king. and your GOD told me that you guys all have to be roman catholic. or whatever. and if you dont, youll be forever damned in the eternal fires of hell!!!! i totally swear!"

thats how rulers have been for a long time.

hey look at our president for one example!

(dont mean to get into that subject)

if your gonna be religious, at least understand where youre coming from and dont sound like an ignorant, mentally blind, asshole.

But you assume all religious people are ignorant, and many of them aren't.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Dear Master_of_the_faster: You asked me a while ago what I thought of your argument style, and I told you that you needed to really work on your formatting.

Seriously man, -nobody is going to read- a gigantic block of text with random punctuation, no seperation by concept and no attempt at formatting in a useful way, especially when your mode of speech is so tangential and random.

You have enough good ideas that seeing you fall victim to tl;dr isn't something to be encouraged.

Thanks,
Your local concerned Devonin.

[Grandiagod]

Re: God.

Wall of text

Seriously, they should just have you stand on the border of Mexico and type. No one could get by.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: God.

what makes me so angry about religion is people just blindly following without even remotely questioning whats going on or giving an attempt to learn.

religion has always been a way to control people by fear.

What makes me so angry about antireligious people is their blindly following of the first thought that passes through their mind without even remotely questioning what's going on or giving an attempt to learn.

Do you honestly have any idea how ignorant you sound by saying that? Do you understand what hypocrisy is?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Grandiagod]

Re: God.

ITT- We group every religious/anti-theist person into groups because attacking the members of a school of ideology is a lot easier than actually attacking the ideas, beliefs and facts that both sides have to present.

[Shihen22]

Re: God.

You're right. But we can reject the claim, much like you could reject my claim about an invisible monkey in my room if I don't show you evidence.

God is not immune to this logic just because a lot of people believe in him.

lmao. I kinda think god exists, but I have to since I go to catholic school......

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

Seriously, they should just have you stand on the border of Mexico and type. No one could get by.

Perhaps I need to stop posting in a giant block of text as Devonin politely asked me to, but I would encourage that you not mock me and instead read what I have to say. Did you even bother to see what I wrote about?

[devonin]

Re: God.

Perhaps I need to stop posting in a giant block of text as Devonin politely asked me to, but I would encourage that you not mock me and instead read what I have to say. Did you even bother to see what I wrote about?

That's the point you see...the giant wall of text makes reading it such an eye and mind strain, that you run the risk of people simply bypassing what you're saying in the same way that people will bypass a random nonsense post without responding to it.

Do you honestly have any idea how ignorant you sound by saying that? Do you understand what hypocrisy is?

Well, since they said "What I don't like is "religious people who X"" and you said "What I don't like is "non-religious people who X"" (Note, neither of you said or even necessarily implied you think -all- religious or non-religious people are like that) Neither of you is being a hypocrite.

There -are- religious people who blindly follow what they are told without questioning it (I've met several) And there -are- non-religious people who buy in to the "all religious people are ignorant buffoons" mindset (I've met several of those too) so you are actually both perfectly justified in making the statements you made. Can't we all just get along?

ITT- We group every religious/anti-theist person into groups because attacking the members of a school of ideology is a lot easier than actually attacking the ideas, beliefs and facts that both sides have to present.

Ironically, you're the only one who actually made an absolute statement that what people have been doing is speak in absolutes *grin*

lmao. I kinda think god exists, but I have to since I go to catholic school......

See, that this kind of statement gets made is what gives credence to what Mblavis7 says. I spent 15 years in Catholic schools, and while you learn about Catholicism, I'm pretty sure that if you don't believe in Catholicism you aren't kicked out. (Heck, we actually had a protestant religion teacher for a while) You are in fact allowed to think critically about the faith and draw your own conclusions.

If you have religious/religion teachers, or your school has a chaplain who is remotely competant, they should be encouraging such thinking, and questioning.

[devonin]

Re: God.

So here is the original block of text that people are finding difficult to read, for the purposes of this post, feel free to bypass this block.

These threads on religion really go no where. No one can argue for it because humans made religion and yet they want to argue something that goes beyond humanity without any evidence. On the other hand, the lack of evidence applies to any critics of religion as well. The answer really lies in a side of the argument that isn't so one-sided and perhaps the idea that one could honer that certain parts of religion are right, certain parts are wrong, all are right, or all are wrong. One can't trust religion 100% or mistrust religion 100% because neither have evidence. With any of the possibilities in mind, I always value a person having their rights of life, liberty, and property unless that person is trying to take someone else's life, liberty, or property without a justified cause (certain religions and their different treatment of others without any real justification). Now someone might ask me what if I just want to take someone's life, liberty, or property just for the sake of doing such an act without being justified. To me, this is considered a bad act because I use the simple logic that such an act is not the way I would want to be treated (with my life, liberty, or property taken away). If someone wants to be what I define as bad, be my guest. On top of my personal beliefs, I also believe that if you are good at being good or if you are good at being bad, a person chooses what path better suits them in life (what ever path a person believes would give them more life, liberty, and property [this doesn't mean that it would Actually happen]). If I was to come across a person who was willingly able to accept that they are bad and wanted to take my liberty for no reason, I value an eye for an eye, but only if it makes me get my life, liberty, or property back. There is no reason to seek vengeance if vengeance doesn't give you anything in return to get back to where you first were. For example, what's the use of killing someone who killed your family member when you obviously know that the person who died won't come back? Sure you would be even in the fact that you both have family members lost, but you are beneath where you started. If this bad person started this, he should be lower than you in status. Not on the same level of life, liberty, and property. Let's say that this bad guy was trying to also kill someone else, but I beat him up and save that someone else. I would have saved a person and gotten the bad guy imprisoned. The very thought that I saved a person (which would make me regret losing a family member less) and that getting the bad guy imprisoned (to stop him from ever killing during the time he is imprisoned) would make me feel above this bad guy (in this case, some would probably not feel even with the bad guy since you lost a loved one). I would say that a good guy or bad guy would only be satisfied with an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property. A good person would want an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property to stop the bad person from doing something bad again. On the other hand, the bad person would want the unproportional share of life, liberty, and property because he/she wants to lower everyone else's life, liberty, and property to be superior.

Now I'm going to basically copy/paste what you said above only putting in some hard returns where they ought to be, and generally making the formatting a little easier on the eyes.

These threads on religion really go nowhere. No one can argue for religion because humans made religion and yet they want to argue something that goes beyond humanity without any evidence. On the other hand, the lack of evidence applies to any critics of religion as well.

The answer really lies in a side of the argument that isn't so one-sided and perhaps the idea that one could honour that certain parts of religion are right, certain parts are wrong, all are right, or all are wrong.

One can't trust religion 100% or mistrust religion 100% because neither have evidence. With any of the possibilities in mind, I always value a person having their rights of life, liberty, and property unless that person is trying to take someone else's life, liberty, or property without a justified cause.

Now someone might ask me what if I just want to take someone's life, liberty, or property just for the sake of doing such an act without being justified. To me, this is considered a bad act because I use the simple logic that such an act is not the way I would want to be treated (with my life, liberty, or property taken away). If someone wants to be what I define as bad, be my guest. On top of my personal beliefs, I also believe that if you are good at being good or if you are good at being bad, a person chooses what path better suits them in life (what ever path a person believes would give them more life, liberty, and property [this doesn't mean that it would Actually happen]).

If I was to come across a person who was willingly able to accept that they are bad and wanted to take my liberty for no reason, I value an eye for an eye, but only if it makes me get my life, liberty, or property back. There is no reason to seek vengeance if vengeance doesn't give you anything in return to get back to where you first were.

For example, what's the use of killing someone who killed your family member when you obviously know that the person who died won't come back? Sure you would be even in the fact that you both have family members lost, but you are beneath where you started. If this bad person started this, he should be lower than you in status. Not on the same level of life, liberty, and property.

Let's say that this bad guy was trying to also kill someone else, but I beat him up and save that someone else. I would have saved a person and gotten the bad guy imprisoned. The very thought that I saved a person (which would make me regret losing a family member less) and that getting the bad guy imprisoned (to stop him from ever killing during the time he is imprisoned) would make me feel above this bad guy (in this case, some would probably not feel even with the bad guy since you lost a loved one).

I would say that a good guy or bad guy would only be satisfied with an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property. A good person would want an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property to stop the bad person from doing something bad again. On the other hand, the bad person would want the unproportional share of life, liberty, and property because he/she wants to lower everyone else's life, liberty, and property to be superior.

Now...I'm going to take some liberties here, and see about restating the above in a more clear and succint way, it should still communicate the same information but in a way that is easier to digest, and easier to respond to. Apologies if I end up removing any of the parts you felt were vital to what you were saying, but hopefully this will show the benefits of being a little more discerning with word choice and tangents:

These threads on religion really go nowhere. Religion is inherantly unprovable, but is also impossible to conclusively disprove. The only thing that is really effective is a middle-ground view, where some parts of religion are integrated with some parts of non-religion.

The one aspect that most religions have in common with non-religious institutions (Like law) is that all humans have a right to their own life, liberty and property, and this is something I support as well.

Now, this doesn't mean that everyone is perfectly allowed to exercise their own right to life, liberty and property any way they choose. They are constrained by the logic of the religious concept of 'do unto others.' Your rights extend only as far as you aren't trying to take away the rights of others.

For people who violate that right, I'm in favour of eye-for-an-eye as a means of punishment, but only insofar as it can directly reverse the violation of my rights. If you steal from me, I should get my things back, if you assault me, you should be assaulted. There's no point in equal revenge if it doesn't undo what you did.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: God.

Also, mblavis, religion was primarily a way to explain the events of the universe (Although science has explained those), establish morals, and control people. The only reason that we had our handful of [for lack of a better word] tyrants is because they interpreted the "Thou shall not have any other Gods before me" commandment in a bad way. Religious freedom in most Western countries (Particularly the U.S.) would seem like a way to solve this problem, but some people are still ignorant and shoving beliefs down people's throats. Even one of my favorite comedians (And also a religiou man, although he still uses logic), Tyler Perry, gave a hint of ignorance in one of his dialogues:

Mr. Brown: I think she's an alias (He means to say 'atheist')
Kora (Not getting what Brown is saying): ......What's that?
Mr. Brown: Someone who doesn't believe in God.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

Thanks for clearing up my big piece of text Devonin. I would say that the meaning is close enough.
The only thing that I think should be added was the fact that I still value that a person can make his/her own decisions to be what I define as good/bad if that is what they believe will give them more success (life, liberty, and property). However, just because one believes they will be more successful in a situation doesn't mean they would actually be more successful. For example, if you are gang member and you died early, (yet you really believed that you would get more liberty and property) you were probably better off not doing what I define as bad deeds.

[cathergirlhaley]

Re: God.

wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry any way?I mean, if you dont believe in Him and you do "bad things" and there really is a God your screwed.and by doing "bad deeds" you just make things a whole lot more complicated for u when you die and while your on Earth.