At 8/5/10 12:27 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/4/10 08:07 PM, Patton3 wrote: Here's how I rebutted this:

Well let's take the fun approach then and rebutt your rebuttal. I'll try to go with whatever I think his response will be to you.

I actually got the chance to talk with him in person. First of all, he didn't mention the Q document, merely that they were copying other sources. Oral traditions, and was even so bold as to say material written by the Apostles themselves.
And let's just say that you can take $125 to the bank. I'm not sure whether to be amused or saddened... What really pissed me off though, was on the Israelites putting entire cities to the sword. He has the gall to say "Do you think some wars are justified? That was the case here." I had the logical response in asking how putting men, women, and children to death by the thousands is in anyway justified when the Israelites we're referring too here were the invaders, but he dragged out "god works in mysterious ways." All in all, it was kind of disappointing.

At 8/5/10 01:55 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Do you own a dictionary? Or have you ever taken a indepth course of the English language?

Have never ever encountered the simple linguistic fact, that one word can cover more than one meaning? It's not stretching the word, it's using two different meanings of the word. Religions is both the religious system, and the practise of it. A religion being made up doesn't mean the same as it being non-existant. English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Also, loved you comparison between Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins. Last I checked Dawkins has never called his followers to harm anyone, or to use social preassure to opress a minority. Also, claiming middle ground is just equally obnoxious.

Can you point out to me where I said anything about people being harmed?

That wasn't the issue I was talking about.

Of course, I could be just as stupid as you and people like Pox and then just point to all the atheist nations and dictatorships that ordered killings and mass murders...

But oh wait... those "conveniently" don't count.

Well isn't that just typical.

At 8/5/10 11:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

Except... I do hold people responsible. "Religion causes misery," does not preclude the practice thereof.

But yet in every instance, you never say "people".

At 8/6/10 01:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

Except... I do hold people responsible. "Religion causes misery," does not preclude the practice thereof.

But yet in every instance, you never say "people".

1. Actually I have explicitly mentioned practice and/ or human involvement when talking about my issues with religion.

2. Human involvement is implicit.

2a. If I hold that religion is made up, then the only way "religion causes misery" makes sense is if it refers to or involves the practice thereof.

2b. A rather key ingredient to religion is practice.

2c. I've yet to think up an example of religion causing misery that does not find misery from the practice thereof.

It seems that... what we've taken as shorthand for something rather obvious, you've taken as deception. Do you really think we're arguing that religion absolves people of responsibility for their actions? That tends to be something we argue against.

The word-play you're harping on is actually not unique to the term 'religion' either. Rather, it works with any noun by which action is implicit, and is a well accepted use of the English language. For instance, "philosophy is enjoyable."

At 8/6/10 01:01 AM, Memorize wrote: Of course, I could be just as stupid as you and people like Pox and then just point to all the atheist nations and dictatorships that ordered killings and mass murders...

But oh wait... those "conveniently" don't count.

Well isn't that just typical.

Religious wars. Those fueled by religion.
Atheist wars. Those fueled by atheism.

Remind me which mass murders were fueled by a lack of belief in god?
See, one makes sense, the other doesn't.
"I believe in God. He told me to smite you, that's why I'm killing you".

"I don't believe in God. I have no religion. This lack of religion is the reason why I'm killing you".
??

See Mem, I don't really think you're a bad guy, I just think your lack of teddy bears is causing irrationality. You don't have any teddy bears at home to snuggle with. Just go buy a teddy bear or two, and these violent, rage-filled misanthropic rants will dry up.

If we can use a lack of something to fuel things, my god, I think we just solved the world's energy problems. Let's just run our cars on not-fuels! It's so simple!

But yet in every instance, you never say "people".

People.....
People like you. People like Memorize, that purposefully antagonize.....
Fuck it.

New religion: Amemorizism. Characterized by a lack of belief in Memorize. I am the high priest, join my new religion people! There's no fees or anything!!

You too can become an amemorizian and save your immortal soul!

Eh, I believe that there's no way to know the answers to our existence, and all attempts- religion - are just silly humans assigning Gods to things they don't understand. I realized this after thinking about Greek myths and Gods: they assigned gods, such as the sun god, to thinks they didn't understand. Now, we understand thesw things that the Greeks didn't, and have rejected the Greek explainations, but one there's one thing we still don't understand: How we came to be.

So naturally, we assigned a God to this question and proclaimed God created us. The problem is, there's no way to know this for certain - it's just blind faith. How do we know Jesus was actually a prophet? How do we know the eyewitnesses were truthful? We don't.

We have to accept that we'll never understand our existence. The atheists have the big bang theory, but what caused the big bang? The theists have God, but who created God? We don't know.

Agnosticism and absurdism are the only two valid belives in regards to this perennial question.

At 8/6/10 01:01 AM, Patton3 wrote: I actually got the chance to talk with him in person. First of all, he didn't mention the Q document, merely that they were copying other sources. Oral traditions, and was even so bold as to say material written by the Apostles themselves.

It's actually not all that bold.
Jesus talked to the apostles. The apostles talked to other people. Those people talked to other people, who talked to other people who finally decided it might be beneficial to write some of these things down.

The dilemma is in it being a giant game of telephone, and how far removed the original is to the actual product we have today.

Earlier traditions and written records make sense, hence Q document theory. It's not entirely unsurprising he didn't mention Q document by name, given you weren't talking about the Gospels explicitly, weren't really talking textual criticism, and the name of one specific document being somewhat superfluous information.

Here's the question you ask him:
If we find earlier records, or the autographs of the gospel writers themselves, or even (dare I say it) the written words of Jesus Christ, and they differ from what is in the Bible today.....what then?

Do you say the Holy Bible is false? Do you call the written words of Jesus heretical? Do you incorporate the texts into the Bible, or create a new one? If so, then how could the Bible ever have been Holy?

The wonderful thing about the Bible is we're constantly finding crap for it, even after all these years. Dead Sea Scrolls is a good example. And there's always a chance that what we "know" today will be completely eschewed tomorrow by a profound discovery.

And let's just say that you can take $125 to the bank.

And people say I don't know what I'm talking about.....**scoff**

I had the logical response in asking how putting men, women, and children to death by the thousands is in anyway justified when the Israelites we're referring too here were the invaders, but he dragged out "god works in mysterious ways." All in all, it was kind of disappointing.

Let the record show Imperator called it.

God has the plan. Only God knows the plan. We know the plan is good because it's God's plan, therefore anything that doesn't make sense can only be explained by it being "too complex" for us to understand how good it really is.

When there's some loophole, and I end up in heaven standing at the pearly gates, and I have the chance to say one thing to god.....I'm going to slap him in the face and berate him for having a "master plan" that involves killing children with cancer.

New topic:

Purpose of life.
If you're atheist, this varies. Some believe life has no intrinsic purpose, some believe it's subjective, some believe it's something like the Laws of Nature, etc.

But chances are you've fielded more than once phrases like "How can you believe life has no purpose", "So you believe life has no purpose", "you're atheist, therefore, you believe your life has no purpose".

Purpose, higher purpose, meaning, definition, etc. Terms to be used interchangeably.

If you're Christian, this is concrete.....and simple....and IMO, depressing.

The purpose of life is to get into Heaven.
The definition of life, is an entrance exam.

That's it.
Use whatever terms you want, but this is the Christian belief. God has a Plan, life has a purpose, if you live a good life, you go to Heaven, if not, Hell. Trials and tribulations are often assigned as "God's tests" for us, to see if we have faith.

Inherently, the end goal of life....is to receive it again eternally.
In other words, God is the scientist, life is the experiment, and we are the lab rats. Cheese at the end of the maze is Heaven.

You can use whatever flowery description you want, but in the end, that's what it boils down to. Life is a test, fail you get burned, pass and you get goodies.

To Christians who don't believe I'm accounting for the purpose of life accurately, what makes you say so? What is the purpose to life then? What part of your religion am I not understanding in this?

If you say only God knows the purpose, then how do you know there is a purpose? And how do you know what I described (which fits your religion), isn't it?

To Christians who believe I've nailed it on the head (fat chance with me describing this so disdainfully), how is this good?

You're nothing but a pawn in someone else's game. Your Free Will is illusory. You either play by the rules, or don't and accept punishment. That's not Free Will....that's coercion. Even we petty humans have accepted coercion isn't really "good", so how can an all-powerful benevolent god use this on such a massive scale?

I'm not really trying to discredit Christianity as much as credit the old Greek and Roman pantheons. See, they knew "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", which is why their gods are all petty, selfish DICKS, whose involvement in this world isn't benevolent, kind, fair, or just.

Otherwise, hey, explain how the Gulf oil disaster fits the "master plan", other than resigning a "god moves in mysterious ways" cop-out. See, Occam's Razor:
What makes more sense? A benevolent and just god allows a massive oil disaster in the Gulf costing many innocents their livelihoods, as a test to see how strong our faiths in him and his benevolent and just master plan is?

Or Poseidon being pissed and wreaking the joint?
Cause "Hulk SMASH" seems to make more sense to me than trying to sell me this notion of god being a good guy.....when he pulls shit like this on a regular friggin basis.

At 8/6/10 04:38 PM, Imperator wrote: What makes more sense? A benevolent and just god allows a massive oil disaster in the Gulf costing many innocents their livelihoods, as a test to see how strong our faiths in him and his benevolent and just master plan is?

Well... according to Patton's theology buddy... people caused the oil spill, not God. Sheesh, Imperator, it's like you just don't listen!

***

At 8/6/10 01:53 PM, Dubbi wrote: there's one thing we still don't understand: How we came to be.

Wow. We sure have come a long way!

At 8/6/10 04:38 PM, Imperator wrote:

Otherwise, hey, explain how the Gulf oil disaster fits the "master plan", other than resigning a "god moves in mysterious ways" cop-out. See, Occam's Razor:

It's because we can't grow as individuals if we don't suffer a little!

I'm haven't read this much into the thread, but I'd just like to say:

I have absolutely nothing wrong with believing in a God, so long as you don't believe in one solely because it is a belief you were brought up with. If there was undeniable proof that there was a supreme being in existence, at best that would turn me agnostic, as there are millions of deities humanity has worshipped over the millennia, and the Abrahamic ones are in a minority.

Also, this debate is very interesting. I think Theists should watch this.

At 8/6/10 03:46 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

It seems that... what we've taken as shorthand for something rather obvious, you've taken as deception. Do you really think we're arguing that religion absolves people of responsibility for their actions? That tends to be something we argue against.

Is that why Bill Maher called a country being run by an atheist dictator, under an atheist inspired economic system with the official "Religion" of the country being "atheism", as a "state religion."?

Oh sure, you can blame Christianity for the actions of the catholic church. You can blame Muslims for the Crusades... but oh no, you can't blame atheism for the millions killed within a 50 year time span, instead it's "religion" without any belief associated with it.

I mean really... why would I call the catholic church during medieval times a state religion? I'll call the fault of "religion and Christianity" itself. It's only when any of the 3 major religions aren't involved that I'll call it a "state religion", even though both fit the definition.

Pick and choose! Hurray!

At 8/6/10 12:24 PM, Imperator wrote:

Remind me which mass murders were fueled by a lack of belief in god?
See, one makes sense, the other doesn't.
"I believe in God. He told me to smite you, that's why I'm killing you".

Nevermind that land and gold they were after to begin with.

I suppose you also believe that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our religions and freedom, right?

"I don't believe in God. I have no religion. This lack of religion is the reason why I'm killing you".
??

That's why Stalin did.

But he doesn't count... so...

See Mem, I don't really think you're a bad guy, I just think your lack of teddy bears is causing irrationality.

I hate everyone.

New religion: Amemorizism. Characterized by a lack of belief in Memorize. I am the high priest, join my new religion people! There's no fees or anything!!

I'd shoot you before you got on your knees.

At 8/6/10 09:09 PM, Memorize wrote: Nevermind that land and gold they were after to begin with.

Ah, I see how you play this. So the whole "Crusade" part of the Crusades wasn't actually about religion. Religion was just the tool used by the powers that be to sway the idiot masses.

I suppose you also believe that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our religions and freedom, right?

No, it's because they were after our land and gold, like you said.
Obviously Osama only used religion as a recruiting tool to get his soldiers. Religion is just like a shovel. It's a tool, nothing more.

Am I close?

That's why Stalin did.

Right, Stalin killed people because he had no religion. His lack of religion told him to kill people. This was the instruction he got from his lack of religion. His lack of God not-commanded him to kill people for his non-religion. And he carried it out dutifully!

You're confusing cause and correlation.
You want it both ways. "Don't blame the religion", but when an Atheist commits the crime, it's atheism's fault.

Sorry, but no.

I'll give you the option:

1. Either religion plays no part in the motivation behind the worlds killers and genocides. A theist leader doesn't mean it was theism that caused the genocide. It was dickhead's fault for exploiting the religion.

2. Or religion plays a part. Stalin killed people because he was atheist. Just as the Crusades were religiously motivated, just as every Holy War was CAUSED by religion. Thus, both atheism and religion are at fault, along with the dickheads using them.

I think I'm being more than fair....considering saying atheism causes anything is like saying not-playing football causes arthritis.

I hate everyone.

Teddy bear yourself. Not-teddy bear is bad for you!

At 8/6/10 05:53 PM, poxpower wrote: It's because we can't grow as individuals if we don't suffer a little!

Good call!
Well, I sure hope little Timmy learned the lesson before that semi ran him over!

Or:
Good call!
Timmy's probably gonna grow more than all of us before that terminal cancer kills him. He'll be all grown up and only 8 years old.

I like using either insta-death examples, or inexplicably terrible atrocities.

After I posted, I figured someone would say something like "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger".

Sorta the crimp in the argument. The way out I see is when tragedy results in death. Hard to grow when we're dead.....

Could have used crib death as my example, but I figured that was a cheap shot.

At 8/6/10 09:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/6/10 05:53 PM, poxpower wrote: It's because we can't grow as individuals if we don't suffer a little!

Good call!
Well, I sure hope little Timmy learned the lesson before that semi ran him over!

The good LAWRD called Timmy to his SIDE-A
Timmy is in HEAVEN-A now! While his big brother ended up in hell because he lived old enough to bang his girlfriend before marriage.

BURN SINNER

haha religion is retarded HIGH FIVE

Trip post EXTRRRAVAGANZAAA!
(damnit, next time I'll remember to copypasta correctly).

At 8/6/10 05:20 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Well... according to Patton's theology buddy... people caused the oil spill, not God. Sheesh, Imperator, it's like you just don't listen!

Got it.
People cause trouble..

Free Will.....in a Master Plan?

So everything that happens is all part of God's Master Plan, but what happens that's bad is not God's fault....but if it's not God's fault, then it's not part of God's Master Plan.....but if it's not part of God's Master Plan, then how can it be a Master Plan.....but if it's a Master Plan, how can it not be God's fault.....but if it's Free Will.....Master Plan.....Free Will.....

Crap, I'm stuck in a Free Will vs Determinism loop....
Help!

At 8/6/10 09:40 PM, poxpower wrote: The good LAWRD called Timmy to his SIDE-A
Timmy is in HEAVEN-A now! While his big brother ended up in hell because he lived old enough to bang his girlfriend before marriage.

BURN SINNER

Should read about Purgatory and the Catholic Church. Catholics are the Alpha Males of Christian insane dogma; they've got more regulations, definitions and codes for Christian dogma than US tax laws.

Heaven and hell right? Original sin right? That's why you have to baptize them at birth, to wash off Original Sin....

Ok...what about babies who die after birth, or who die before being baptized?
Or what about all the people who never heard of God, and thus had no way of knowing they were supposed to be baptized?

.....er.....PURGATORY! The half-way house for all the poor babies and legions of people who had the unfortunate fate of being alive before Christ.

But wait, the Church is getting rid of limbo! What about all the babies?
....er.....babies get a free pass to heaven!

What about everyone else?
.....anyone born before Christianity was created is hereby FUCKED. SORRY!

See, this is why I'd actually WANT to go to hell.
I could hang out with Caesar, Ghandi, Sun Tsu, Hannibal, Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus.....

Hey, if what some people say is true, I can hang out with all the Catholics too!
Mother Theresa would be fun to drink with in Hell. Wouldn't be surprised if she could drink me under the table.

See? Christians made Heaven such an exclusive club, a lot of really cool people like Ghandi and Socrates don't make the cut....which makes Hell the cooler place to actually be!

Heaven sounds like a place for uptight buttholes, judging by the rules you have to follow just to get into the friggin place.

haha religion is retarded HIGH FIVE

I just wish they'd drop the "mysterious ways" thing.
It makes me want to piss on their shoe and give the same excuse as a reasoning.

WTF? Why'd you just piss on my shoe?!?!

I have a Master Plan, and work in mysterious ways. In time, you will know. You will know the mighty wisdom of my plan, and the purpose of the great Shoe Pissing will be revealed to you!

At 8/6/10 09:27 PM, Imperator wrote:

Ah, I see how you play this. So the whole "Crusade" part of the Crusades wasn't actually about religion. Religion was just the tool used by the powers that be to sway the idiot masses.

*ding*

Right, Stalin killed people because he had no religion. His lack of religion told him to kill people. This was the instruction he got from his lack of religion. His lack of God not-commanded him to kill people for his non-religion. And he carried it out dutifully!

He killed them because he feared any individual thought from the state. I know that.

But it's no different than what the "Church" did.

My issue is with people blaming "religion" in general when an atheist does it, but then blaming the specific religion when anyone else does.

Crusades? Christianity's fault. Even though what they did strictly goes against their own claimed religion, it's still Christianity's fault. See how horrible religion is?

Stalin's mass murders? That's not atheism; that's state religion! See how horrible religion is?

All it is, is an easy out for idiots like Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens (Who I find quite funny. He ridicules people for believing in something they can't see while he, himself, continues to believe in the success of Iraq?)

You want it both ways. "Don't blame the religion", but when an Atheist commits the crime, it's atheism's fault.

Sorry, but no.

Didn't I just say that to blame atheism itself would be stupid?
Didn't I say in my last post that the Soviet Union was a state religion?

At 8/6/10 09:09 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/6/10 03:46 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

It seems that... what we've taken as shorthand for something rather obvious, you've taken as deception. Do you really think we're arguing that religion absolves people of responsibility for their actions? That tends to be something we argue against.

Is that why Bill Maher called a country being run by an atheist dictator, under an atheist inspired economic system with the official "Religion" of the country being "atheism", as a "state religion."?

Huh what?

The user to which you responded is called yurgenburgen, not Bill Maher. (Though... I guess he could conceivably be Bill Maher.)

The argument to which you responded is, "Because the level of misery that religion causes is far too great to be ignored by any person with a few morals.", not an argument specifically against Christianity.

I'm also having some trouble figuring out how exactly Bill Maher's usage of the term, "state religion" absolves anyone of their responsibility.

At 8/6/10 11:46 PM, Memorize wrote: *ding*

Sounds vaguely familiar.....
Oh wait, that's because I've said that exact same line before.

My issue is with people blaming "religion" in general when an atheist does it, but then blaming the specific religion when anyone else does.

No, your issue is with the fact that "religion" is used as a motivation. You think everything can be boiled down to greed, power, or prestige as primary motivations for actions. Crusades weren't about religion, they were about taking the wealth of the middle east, the Church solidifying its power over feuding kings and lords, and increasing its prestige as a ruling, civilizing body in Medieval society.

Fact is, FAITH is also a primary motivator, you just don't want to accept that.

Crusades? Christianity's fault. Even though what they did strictly goes against their own claimed religion, it's still Christianity's fault. See how horrible religion is?

Was raised Catholic, remember? It's not even Christianity's fault, its MY fault.
That said, the imperfections of the system, a living social structure, are what cause the need to go to a "Holy Land" several thousand miles away and reclaim it.

Stalin's mass murders? That's not atheism; that's state religion! See how horrible religion is?

That doesn't make sense. That's how horrible it is.

All it is, is an easy out for idiots like Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens (Who I find quite funny. He ridicules people for believing in something they can't see while he, himself, continues to believe in the success of Iraq?)

....what the hell do Bill Maher and Hitchens have to do with anything?

Didn't I just say that to blame atheism itself would be stupid?
Didn't I say in my last post that the Soviet Union was a state religion?

Yeah, and then you said blaming Christianity was equally stupid.....which is hard to back when primary motivations are religious.

You want a direct example?
The Spartans refusing to fight at Marathon, because it conflicted with a religious holiday.
You may be able to argue it was political, or strategic, or they were greedy, but if you actually study it? The Spartans did not fight because of a religious motivation.

the trend continues in history. People act in accordance with their faith, without external motivation. So here, if you're really uptight about it:

I won't blame religion, or specific religions for misdeeds of their practitioners. I will blame FAITH, as a motivator in the same vein as greed, power, prestige, etc.

We savvy?

At 8/7/10 02:11 PM, LaForge wrote: Only post I'll ever make in this thread.

Please... never break this promise.

At 8/7/10 01:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

Sounds vaguely familiar.....
Oh wait, that's because I've said that exact same line before.

Yeah...

No, your issue is with the fact that "religion" is used as a motivation.

Part of the reason.

You think everything can be boiled down to greed, power, or prestige as primary motivations for actions.

Aren't they?

Crusades weren't about religion, they were about taking the wealth of the middle east, the Church solidifying its power over feuding kings and lords, and increasing its prestige as a ruling, civilizing body in Medieval society.

Fact is, FAITH is also a primary motivator, you just don't want to accept that.

I never said it wasn't.

Was raised Catholic, remember? It's not even Christianity's fault, its MY fault.
That said, the imperfections of the system, a living social structure, are what cause the need to go to a "Holy Land" several thousand miles away and reclaim it.

It'd be funny if that holy land actually existed on the same spot it used to be.

That doesn't make sense. That's how horrible it is.

Talking to you people is like talking to monkeys.

....what the hell do Bill Maher and Hitchens have to do with anything?

Just that they're examples of people to laugh at.

Didn't I just say that to blame atheism itself would be stupid?
Didn't I say in my last post that the Soviet Union was a state religion?

Yeah, and then you said blaming Christianity was equally stupid.....which is hard to back when primary motivations are religious.

I've asked this question before (with horrible results from you imbecilic people) and I'll ask it again:

If I told you not to go out and kill someone, but you did it anyway under my name; whose fault is it?

You want a direct example?
The Spartans refusing to fight at Marathon, because it conflicted with a religious holiday.

So... you're complaining about people NOT fighting?

We savvy?

It wouldn't be fun if we were.

At 8/7/10 10:28 PM, Memorize wrote:
Aren't they?

That's not the question. The question is, are they the ONLY motivators?
You agree faith is a motivator as well.

Now all you have to do is tell me if religion can exist without faith, or if faith is inherent in the definition of what religion is. Because if faith can be separated from religion, then show me how we can separate the religion which doesn't cause people to murder everyone, and the faith that does.

If they're inseparable, then do I not have a case for blaming religion, which promotes, fosters, and encourages faith?

See, that's just it. Faith is like the atom bomb of "tools". Religion is the movement to give every citizen 3 of them.

If faith is an impetus (like greed) that can drive people to murder, then the movement encouraging that is morally reprehensible and responsible.

When greed is encouraged, greed happens. When greed results in bad things, should we not blame whatever system encouraged that greed? Or just the people?

Considering the current political landscape on greed after the market crash.....I'd say BOTH is the correct answer. You blame the greedy fucks, and fix whatever it was that allowed the greedy fucks to be so damn greedy....eg, the SEC.

Religion unfortunately has an atrocious track record of fixing itself....see FAITH for details....
Hence my position: Religion is dangerous, and CAUSES problems. The system is set up to cause faith, faith motivates psycho murderers. It's indirect, but it's not that hard to follow.....even for you.

If I told you not to go out and kill someone, but you did it anyway under my name; whose fault is it?

I'll just let everyone else bring out all the passages in the Bible that instruct killing or stoning of heathens and heretics.

However:
You're not saying "don't go out and kill someone"
You're saying "These people deserve death." in one instance.
"Killing people is wrong" in another.

and "Killing is not justified, except in certain situations......",trailing off there.

Luckily, most of your worshipers interpreted the killing=BAD part as the most important, and live normal, healthy lives. But a few decided your words gave them carte blanche to murder that certain group of people.....so they did.

Now the people who didn't kill anyone are fighting with those that did over who interpreted your words correctly.

Unfortunately, you yourself aren't going to do a damn thing to clarify, so you watch as your adherents split into camps over the ambiguity and contradictions of your statements.

You'll agree, that's a more accurate assessment of the situation and the ambiguities and contradictions in the Bible and other holy books.

Or you won't agree, because it's devastating to your argument, being the stubborn ass you are.

At 8/7/10 10:56 PM, Imperator wrote:

Religion unfortunately has an atrocious track record of fixing itself....see FAITH for details....
Hence my position: Religion is dangerous, and CAUSES problems. The system is set up to cause faith, faith motivates psycho murderers. It's indirect, but it's not that hard to follow.....even for you.

"bla bla bla/a bunch of shit I already know"

I'm only interested in why you blame faith as a primary cause, rather than the more likely reasons.

"Faith plays a small part... yeah, let's exaggerate that one to suit my needs."

Point being that you only blame religion when you need it to. Why else acknowledge that we weren't attacked on 9/11 for our freedoms and religion?

I'll just let everyone else bring out all the passages in the Bible that instruct killing or stoning of heathens and heretics.

Right.

Because obviously a citizen of a nation that tortures is surely in the position to lecture about societal changes.

You'll agree, that's a more accurate assessment of the situation and the ambiguities and contradictions in the Bible and other holy books.

So far the only contradictions that are pointed out are done by idiots who are incapable of reading or taking into consideration the context and timeline that events occur.

And they (you) do this with any religious text.

"How can it say the sun stood still? That's not scientifically accurate!" Nevermind that the English language includes words like sunrise and sunset.

"Here it says the total killed was 24,000 and over here it says 23,000 in 1 day for the same event" Nevermind that 1 day is different from total killed.

"Here it says God dwells in temples and over here it says God does not" Nevermind that each statement comes almost 1000 years apart from each other. Surely nothing could've changed in that time span.

Or you won't agree, because it's devastating to your argument, being the stubborn ass you are.

I have no problem with you people blaming religion or calling faith a motivator.

I have a problem with how and when you use them.

At 8/8/10 11:06 PM, Memorize wrote: I'm only interested in why you blame faith as a primary cause, rather than the more likely reasons.

Faith IS A (not THE) primary cause. I realize you're ill equipped to such nuance that allows for a multi-faceted view of motivation, but like it or not, religion IS A (not THE) primary cause of such things like 9/11, jihad, suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, crusades, witch hunts, and pedophile priests.

"Faith plays a small part... yeah, let's exaggerate that one to suit my needs."

Faith does NOT play a "small" part in any of this. It plays a MASSIVE (not the ONLY) part. And ignoring that is just as retarded as focusing only on the religion... which almost none of us do. And those of us on the generally anti-religion side of things often call people out who claim that it was only religion that caused *insert previous list here*. But of course you ignore that so you can have your talking points.

Because obviously a citizen of a nation that tortures is surely in the position to lecture about societal changes.

You mean, like the US?

At 8/9/10 01:57 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Faith IS A (not THE) primary cause. I realize you're ill equipped to such nuance that allows for a multi-faceted view of motivation, but like it or not, religion IS A (not THE) primary cause of such things like 9/11, jihad, suicide bombings, abortion clinic bombings, crusades, witch hunts, and pedophile priests.

Really, what would be the LEAST motivational reason for 9/11?

Out of:

-Bombing their land
-Killing their people through collateral damage
-Taking sides with their enemies that have nothing to do us

and Religion.

Out of these things, they obviously would never have attacked us on religion alone; and any society (religion or not) would've retaliated based on those circumstances.

So how could you even list religion as a "primary cause"?

I can say that Stalin killed God-Believing people because he feared independent thought from the state... and that would be a true statement... but that doesn't mean he didn't specifically target them for believing in a god.

It's all the same, regardless of a nation's philosophical/religious beliefs.

I just enjoy how you guys pretend there's a difference.

Faith does NOT play a "small" part in any of this. It plays a MASSIVE (not the ONLY) part.

No.

It's small.

Very small.

You just want to pretend like it's massive to justify your irrational fear. No different than our Governments using it to justify their continued occupations.

And ignoring that is just as retarded as focusing only on the religion... which almost none of us do. And those of us on the generally anti-religion side of things often call people out who claim that it was only religion that caused *insert previous list here*. But of course you ignore that so you can have your talking points.

Yeah, sure you do.

Certainly explains why you're over-emphasizing the religious aspect over the political/cultural like our Governments.

Tell me: Who would you rather have as an adviser to Foreign Policy?

Christopher Hitchens or his brother Peter Hitchens?

You mean, like the US?

Tada!

You got it!

Of course, I find it ironic the people from other countries always point to the US; blatantly ignoring their own Governments and what they've been doing for years for much of the same reasons.

Hey!

There's that over-emphasizing again!

At 8/9/10 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote: Out of these things, they obviously would never have attacked us on religion alone; and any society (religion or not) would've retaliated based on those circumstances.

And they never would have found people to suicidally fly planes into buildings without religion.

So how could you even list religion as a "primary cause"?

Because it is.

I can say that Stalin killed God-Believing people because he feared independent thought from the state... and that would be a true statement... but that doesn't mean he didn't specifically target them for believing in a god.

That actually helps my point more than yours... but okay.

No.

It's small.

Very small.

Well, if YOU say so. I would hate to go against the holy word of Memorize.

By the way, you might want to back that opinion up with facts. If you want, I can post plenty of terrorist actions with direct acknowledgement of the religious motivations, as well as those of Crusaders and other acts of religious "fervor" if you want. Can you give me evidence that the religious motivations to ANYTHING we've discussed is so small as to be inconsequential to the discussion as you've stated?

Yeah, sure you do.

Yup. :)

Tell me: Who would you rather have as an adviser to Foreign Policy?

Christopher Hitchens or his brother Peter Hitchens?

Not familiar with Peter, so I couldn't tell you.

At 8/8/10 11:06 PM, Memorize wrote: "bla bla bla/a bunch of shit I already know"

I'm only interested in why you blame faith as a primary cause, rather than the more likely reasons.

Something about the whole "Death to heretics" thing seems to strike me as a big clue.

"Faith plays a small part... yeah, let's exaggerate that one to suit my needs."

Right. Or let's do it your way and undercut it. "Holy Wars" are actually misnomers!

Point being that you only blame religion when you need it to. Why else acknowledge that we weren't attacked on 9/11 for our freedoms and religion?

Osama is a religious nut. I am acknowledging it happened in part for religion.
I'm also acknowledging US involvement in the Mid East as a reason.

My source for these two motivations is Osama bin Laden.

I think you're thinking there has to be one or the other. Or that one motivation must reign supreme.

Because obviously a citizen of a nation that tortures is surely in the position to lecture about societal changes.

And Nobel created dynamite. Ad hominem.

So far the only contradictions that are pointed out are done by idiots who are incapable of reading or taking into consideration the context and timeline that events occur.

You mean Christians?

"How can it say the sun stood still? That's not scientifically accurate!" Nevermind that the English language includes words like sunrise and sunset.

I read Greek, remember? I've even definitively found translation errors....in this very thread.
You don't have to convince me the Bible is full of errors and holes. I'm well aware already.

"Here it says the total killed was 24,000 and over here it says 23,000 in 1 day for the same event" Nevermind that 1 day is different from total killed.

Bit of a non-sequitur, ain't it? Unless, let me see if I follow:
You're arguing the people who kill in the name of the Bible are wrong because of.....interpretation and translation errors?

"Here it says God dwells in temples and over here it says God does not" Nevermind that each statement comes almost 1000 years apart from each other. Surely nothing could've changed in that time span.

Non-sequitur.
Really not sure what translation and interpretation errors, in what I consider a non-holy book, have to do with adherents, who consider the book Holy and flawless, who use the book to justify their actions.

Unless you're somehow arguing using the OT to justify genocide is wrong, because the NT is "newer"? See, this is precisely the problem.

Christians cannot decide how to interpret the Bible, so they cannot decide which passages deserve weight, and which ones don't. So when you have passages that are ambiguous, or lacking context, yeah, you're going to get some dickfucker who cannot read believing God is commanding them to do something silly like murder heretics.

Eureaka, I think you've got it. We just need to educate Christians, to be able to actually read their book and understand it!

You're a genius Mem!

I have a problem with how and when you use them.

Because you have a problem with us using them period.
Otherwise, feel free to give examples of your own where religion and faith are motivators.
Does the Holocaust count?
Obviously you don't think the Crusades count.
So how about the Spanish Inquisition?
Manifest Destiny?

But if the Crusades don't count.....well how do you even define faith and religion as a motivator?

At 8/9/10 01:01 PM, Imperator wrote: But if the Crusades don't count.....well how do you even define faith and religion as a motivator?

I've been able to reverse engineer thought years of experience within the field.

If the motivation lead to suffer, it's people's fault.
If the motivation lead to progress, it's religions credit.

I'm thinking of taking patents on this epic formula. Just look around at what people are arguing. It fits every time!

People burned women for an imaginary crime that only the Bible defines? Clearly the people's fault. It's not the Bible's fault that people are doing what it's saying. They were really after money and whatnot.

Somebody built a hospital? Clearly Christianity is to credit for inspiring the people who did it. If Christianity hadn't been around, we wouldn't have those hospitals.

So before people start trolling...we should start trolling? Lol at the last post.

So I posted on my FB the quote by Stephen Hawkings about the fundamental difference between science and religion, and how "science will win, because it works."

I happen to know a couple of very.....enthusiastic, shall we say, "born again" type non-denominational Christians. One of them messaged me James 1:27, and said "man made religion is a trap, true religion is love".

I admit, I sorta have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "true", so my mind went instantly to No True Scotsman.

Second thought was....isn't all religion man made?
Third thought.....what the hell does he mean by true religion is love?

Sounded like flowery Christian speak that dances around and doesn't actually make a clear point.

Wondering what you guys think, and what your responses would be.

At 8/25/10 06:53 PM, Imperator wrote:

Wondering what you guys think, and what your responses would be.

It reminds me of your stupidity in the other thread about how if someone doesn't take a position, it immediately means they're atheistic.