Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/30/08 01:53 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 9/30/08 01:05 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Yet this trait rarely seems to be shared with his followers. Again, see homosexuality.

That would be what we call not practicing what one preaches. Christians are supposed to accept their neighbors, even if they don't agree with them.

But with religions, being what they are, full of contradictions, how can you practice what you preach? In every holy book there is usually a plethora of rules wildly contradicting eachother, it's obvious that you cannot live by them all.

I don't see that many democrats arguing their economical politics on the basis that if you don't follow them you'll suffer extreme agony and torment in hell for eternity.

The idea is the same - it's only a matter of degree. The threat of a lean pocket book, while not as extreme, is just as effective at driving people into action.

Yes, the degree. It's like saying "Santa won't give you presents because you've been a naughty boy" equals to "You shall burn in eternal hellfire for your unpure thoughts!". They are both examples of fearmongering.

Just a note: I generally dislike fearmongering. It is ok when the fear is of the direct consequences of wrong actions. I.e. putting extra support pillars on a building in the fear of that the roof may fall down if the weather should act up, or the fear of punishment should you break the law. But when people use fear to persuade others based on their own views, such as certain biblical societies or politics , it is used unduly. It removes critical thought from the picture. It is used to subdue people into accepting their beliefs.

At 9/30/08 11:22 AM, Baalphegor wrote:

At 9/30/08 01:53 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 9/30/08 01:05 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Yet this trait rarely seems to be shared with his followers. Again, see homosexuality.

That would be what we call not practicing what one preaches. Christians are supposed to accept their neighbors, even if they don't agree with them.

But with religions, being what they are, full of contradictions, how can you practice what you preach? In every holy book there is usually a plethora of rules wildly contradicting eachother, it's obvious that you cannot live by them all.

I don't see that many democrats arguing their economical politics on the basis that if you don't follow them you'll suffer extreme agony and torment in hell for eternity.

The idea is the same - it's only a matter of degree. The threat of a lean pocket book, while not as extreme, is just as effective at driving people into action.

Yes, the degree. It's like saying "Santa won't give you presents because you've been a naughty boy" equals to "You shall burn in eternal hellfire for your unpure thoughts!". They are both examples of fearmongering.

Just a note: I generally dislike fearmongering. It is ok when the fear is of the direct consequences of wrong actions. I.e. putting extra support pillars on a building in the fear of that the roof may fall down if the weather should act up, or the fear of punishment should you break the law. But when people use fear to persuade others based on their own views, such as certain biblical societies or politics , it is used unduly. It removes critical thought from the picture. It is used to subdue people into accepting their beliefs.

Indeed, people are so hard to get our of religion for three reasons:
- they're afraid.
- they don't want to loose their chance on heaven, however improbable heaven may be.
- they've been making a fool out of themselves for years, and are too stubborn to just get it over with and surrender - much like why the US troops are still in Iraq.

At 9/30/08 01:46 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Uh. No they aren't.

Not since the dark ages and 2008 has religious influence been so influential really imo.

Are you kidding? Religion has always been influential. Why do you think there has never been a president thats not Christian?

They're always trying to go over their bounds, true. But when countries our made they're usually to control an area, not to enforce a doctrine, unless, again, you go back to the dark ages.

No they are not made to inforce a doctrine but in countries with a predominant religion are always run by people of that religion.

At 9/30/08 01:05 AM, Baalphegor wrote:

At 9/29/08 10:03 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 9/29/08 10:59 AM, Baalphegor wrote:

Too bad the fear of God stops them from being themselves as well: To think critically

Politics create a similar problem, but here we are arguing them.

Yes, but we argue them on the basis of facts, not ignorance.

to be able to stand up if they're homosexual

That would depend upon the religion in question. This thread isn't just about fundamentalist Christians or Muslims - religion encompasses other faiths that may be accepting of alternative lifestyles.

I've met religious people who are perfectly normal beings, but when it comes to homosexuality... well, read Fratto's last post.

to be pro-choice

There are plenty of non-religious reasons to be against abortion; I, for one, happen to be against abortion on secular grounds.

Good for you. Now find me a few deeply religious people who are pro-choice.

and to be tolerant of others.

Funny, I seem to remember Jesus being all about tolerance. He did, after all, purposely hang out with prostitutes and tax collectors to prove that they weren't beyond help.

Yet this trait rarely seems to be shared with his followers. Again, see homosexuality.

Religion bears a quite simple message: THINK LIKE ME!

That's pretty much universal, and religion isn't alone in that regard. You are arguing on the politics board, after all - we're all trying to win others over to our own ways of thinking here.

I agree with you there, but the methods vary wildly. I don't see that many democrats arguing their economical politics on the basis that if you don't follow them you'll suffer extreme agony and torment in hell for eternity.

And to you Fratto. Any sexuality should be allowed, as long as it doesn't involve abusing and mentally scarring someone for life. I.e. pedophilia. Forcing yourself upon another or taking advantage of somene is wrong, no matter what sexuality you may possess. If a dendrophile wants to hump a tree, fine, let him.

In regards to pedophilia, what social group is most known for its practice? Catholic priests. Ironic, isn't it? :P

Does anyone tell them to be Pedos? I think not, also In most religions sex is seen as exclusive and sacred for reproducing, and heterosexuality supports that. The other sexualities Don't, yet people like you want to force them to change their beliefs because you're afraid what they teach will affect you. Well it won't, go make your own church or some shit, but in certain religions, abusing the reproduction system is as bad as abusing a child sexually.

At 9/30/08 05:19 PM, Frattochino wrote: Does anyone tell them to be Pedos? I think not, also In most religions sex is seen as exclusive and sacred for reproducing, and heterosexuality supports that. The other sexualities Don't, yet people like you want to force them to change their beliefs because you're afraid what they teach will affect you. Well it won't, go make your own church or some shit, but in certain religions, abusing the reproduction system is as bad as abusing a child sexually.

I have actually NEVER heard of a SINGLE INSTANCE of a secular society FORCING people into being gay! You're taking the role of the victim here and accusing me of the VERY SAME THINGS that religious groups do all the time! It is YOU who say that people should supress their sexuality, it is YOU who are denying them the freedom of being who they are born to be, it is YOU who are comparing homosexuals with child molestors and rapists! If this isn't the epitome of intolerance, the very thing that your precious idol wanted to get rid of, then show me what is! Because to me, it smells like a huge dung of reeking hypocrisy. And the "Well, don't join then" argument doesn't hold water. You could be arguing the exact same way for blacks and jews to "not join my neo-nazi group", you're still preaching hate! And abusing the reproduction system? Oh holy crap... homosexuality isn't something that is exclusive to homo sapiens. Look at giraffes, flamingoes, several primates and on and on and on. It isn't unnatural, it's been among us ever since amoebas found out that "hey, maybe we should reproduce sexually instead of just split in two". I don't care what kind of mumbo jumbo an ancient book of stupidity tells you, take the blindfolds off and take a look into the real world for once!

At 9/30/08 05:53 PM, Baalphegor wrote:

At 9/30/08 05:19 PM, Frattochino wrote: Does anyone tell them to be Pedos? I think not, also In most religions sex is seen as exclusive and sacred for reproducing, and heterosexuality supports that. The other sexualities Don't, yet people like you want to force them to change their beliefs because you're afraid what they teach will affect you. Well it won't, go make your own church or some shit, but in certain religions, abusing the reproduction system is as bad as abusing a child sexually.

No, intolerance is going around killing gay people or discriminating against them. What the actual church policy is, that if you are a member, dont be gay. How is that forcing anything?

Instead it is people like you who is forcing the church to let people be gay in it even though it goes against what we believe. If you don't believe being gay is wrong then don't be a catholic, its a open and shut case.

At 9/30/08 06:01 PM, Frattochino wrote: No, intolerance is going around killing gay people or discriminating against them. What the actual church policy is, that if you are a member, dont be gay. How is that forcing anything?

Instead it is people like you who is forcing the church to let people be gay in it even though it goes against what we believe. If you don't believe being gay is wrong then don't be a catholic, its a open and shut case.

So, according to you being a gay catholic is completely impossible. Ever think of societies that are catholic? I'm not talking about your standard suburb where your right neigbour is catholic and your left one is protestant. I'm talking about towns, cities, large communities that are catholic (Too hung up on catholics now, this rant goes for every dogma). What would a gay person do? First off, he must (according to you) renounce everything he believe in, be ostracized by a community that thinks of him as a sexual deviant, be cast out from his family, live in constant fear that some nutjob will take the "holy word" too serious and finally flee the place for his own well-being. It's like someone admitting they're jewish in Naziville. And this is according to you "not intolerance". If you have a belief saying that someone is worth less then others because of his stance/views, then hell yes you're being intolerant! Hell, if being gay automatically makes you non-christian I wish someone would drop a gay bomb on the Vatican so that some people would actually start thinking for themselves!

At 9/30/08 06:01 PM, Frattochino wrote: No, intolerance is going around killing gay people or discriminating against them. What the actual church policy is, that if you are a member, dont be gay. How is that forcing anything?

Instead it is people like you who is forcing the church to let people be gay in it even though it goes against what we believe. If you don't believe being gay is wrong then don't be a catholic, its a open and shut case.

Except for those wonderfully sentimental rhetorics concerning 'burning in an enternity of hellfire' and 'kill anyone who lies with another man' etc. People are not persecuting the church for their beliefs, they're pointing out that these beliefs are negative, bigoted and disgusting in a modern, tolerant society. Much in the same way the KKK or neo-nazi groups are villified but hey, it's alright if white-supremacists suffer prejudice because you don't personally subscribe to that belief system, right?

The fact that you blend both moral outrage at anyone daring to tell others how to behave and instructing others that they are wrong and must behave in the manner you think fitting within the same post (three times no less) is perhaps the single most impressive display of hypocrisy I've witnessed in quite some time.

Baalphegor? Frattochino?

NOOBFIIIIIGHT!!!

At 9/30/08 06:27 PM, dySWN wrote: Baalphegor? Frattochino?

NOOBFIIIIIGHT!!!

MORTAL KOMBAT!
dudududu
left->down->up->circle FATALITY!

(Sorry, too hard to resist)

At 9/30/08 06:20 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 9/30/08 06:01 PM, Frattochino wrote:

:blahblah

KKK have the right to hate black people, I personally don't (because im black obviously), but its not against the law. For us to force the to accept black people is downright bigotry.

At 9/30/08 06:44 PM, Frattochino wrote:

KK have the right to hate black people, I personally don't (because im black obviously), but its not against the law. For us to force the to accept black people is downright bigotry.

I quite agree; so you accept that we all have the right to hate the Catholic church and, indeed, all churches? Jolly good. After all, they have no right to demand that we accept their views or for that matter even accept the institution on whatever grounds we choose.

Relativism is all well and good but it gets to the point that we are forced to simultaenously accept and disregard all other systems of thought on the 'merit' that they merely exist. There must be an objective standard (or as objective as it can get when dealing with that pseudo-god: man) and in a secular society that standard is factual reality. It would be alright to persecute homosexuals if they had any choice in the matter and actively hurt society but as the reality is these people do not harm anyone and have no control over their orientation to persecute them in unacceptable. On the other hand those preaching bigotry and, fittingly enough, prejudice are causing suffering and in a manner they have complete control over and therefore it is quite alright to shun them.

Now I am not for one moment suggesting that churches should be forced to go against their doctrine, the rights of the individual and private organisation are paramount to a just society, but their actions merit scorn and so they shall be scorned.

At 9/30/08 06:58 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 9/30/08 06:44 PM, Frattochino wrote:

bullshit

No one demanded you agree with the church's view. I demand you shouldn't forcefully try to change their tradition

At 9/30/08 07:09 PM, Frattochino wrote: No one demanded you agree with the church's view. I demand you shouldn't forcefully try to change their tradition

Well, that would be good and well as long if the church were a isolated community far away from the rest of society, where people were magically born only heterosexual and minded their own business.

Sadly, this is not the case. The church influences society at large, your views affects the rest of us too. Like a social parasite clinging on to the public, feeding off their common sense and sanity, you need society to live, without masses of worshippers there would never be a church. Your thoughts, beliefs, faith and view are up to you to choose. However, what a person is thinking, believing and worshipping for will affect how a person acts. And when you preach hatred, the actions will be motivated by hatred. It's not a "leave us alone" scenario, because you push your dogma upon us. You taint us, and we will have none of it.

u r making fun of my beliefs i should hire a hit-man to kill u

I HATE U

At 9/30/08 08:09 PM, trescloin wrote: u r making fun of my beliefs i should hire a hit-man to kill u

you're not funny, go back to general.

At 9/30/08 08:09 PM, trescloin wrote: u r making fun of my beliefs i should hire a hit-man to kill u

Not even past 100 posts and already got a death threat... I feel honored :)

At 9/30/08 04:59 PM, aninjaman wrote:
Are you kidding?

Somewhat.

Religion has always been influential. Why do you think there has never been a president thats not Christian?

Of course. But that has nothing to do with the law, that's what it was right that I was talking about the law. If not then yeah you're right.

No they are not made to inforce a doctrine but in countries with a predominant religion are always run by people of that religion.

That's an element of faction not religion. But yeah.

In all honesty...religion sucks. It's done nothing, but cause massive wars all over the world. I mean, look at the Protestant and the Catholics. They believe in the same damn thing, and yet, here they are, killing each other. And look what happened to the jewish community during the second world war. Religon sucks, we don't need it anymore. We know what causes what now. We don't need to make up some myth about where we're going when we die. We're either gonna burn in Hell, if there is one, go to heaven, if there is one, be reincarnated, or just rot.

At 9/30/08 06:44 PM, Frattochino wrote:

At 9/30/08 06:20 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 9/30/08 06:01 PM, Frattochino wrote:

blahblah

KKK have the right to hate black people, I personally don't (because im black obviously), but its not against the law. For us to force the to accept black people is downright bigotry.

You should go fetch an English dictionary and search for the word "bigotry," there you'll find it is not appropriate in the context which you just placed it in.

To your point: people can believe anything they want for all I care, as long as it doesn't negatively influence anyone else in the real world.

At 9/30/08 08:10 PM, trescloin wrote: I HATE U

I somehow felt this was directed to me, for a part at least.

Hating someone for attacking your beliefs, with reasonably decent methods (I've never killed a Christian or burnt a Bible, for instance), is quite funny to me. You probably were equally passionate about the time you were told Santa Claus is actually a faker, he's just bits and pieces of other cultures which America pushed in the blender and made their own holiday of. Perhaps you sent the person who told you that Santa was not real hate-mail too, perhaps you polluted his or her BBS thread as well.

I do feel proud that I actually got you angry, by just stating my opinion. If you get so frustrated over something as harmless as a post in a forum, you must be really weak in your faith. If you had good arguments to defend yourself with, you wouldn't have made such a fool out of yourself by writing those words down. Go try to figure out concretely why you believe what you believe, and figure out whether you have been fooling yourself into a fairytale or actually do believe in God. Then come back to a forum to do your thing; whatever that may be.

Personally, I have very mixed views on the role of religion in modern society.

On one hand, religion can inspire people on to do some wonderful things for themselves. I've seen religion get people off drugs, get people off drink, cure sex addiction, cure depression, and all manner of disorders which are so inherant in our modern society. So, if anything, religion can still serve a purpose in our daily lives.

However, I also believe that the current religions are archaic, ancient, and outdated, preaching conflicting stories of both hatred and love. Religion can so easily be manipulated by the wrong people to inspire people to do the wrong thing. Two good examples are Osama Bin Laden, who uses religion as a means to inspire people to take up arms against the Western World, and the early Popes, who comitted too many atrocities to list here.

Religion is, by my own, admittedly rather cold and sterile definition, a mental disease, whether beneficial or detrimental, that's what it is. It's a lapse in the logical, reasoning, rational part of the brain. Now, whilst this can improve the lives of some people, giving them a sense of hope and purpose, and a feeling of belonging, it can also be used to cloud the truth from those who would seek it.
It's a form of hypnosis/indoctrination that passes from one person to the other, usually from parent to child, a pattern that can be observed in many mental illnesses.

Really, my overall conclusion on whether or not the modern world needs religion is that there is a place for religion in the modern world, but not THESE religions. Perhaps what we need to see is a new, peaceful religion which takes all the love, support, and community spirit of the current religions whilst leaving all the hell-fear-mongering and hatred behind. If religions such as Catholicism, which are very stale in their methods and ideas wish to survive, they will have to drop all the hate.

...

Otherwise, they are not invited to the barbecue! :P

If you disagree with this post, then I would be happy to discuss my thoughts with you, but let's keep it rational and sane, please?
-Y

The way I see it, the question of whether its needed is not really one to ask, as there will always be religion. There will always be things that cannot be explained. And as long as we want to bring order and understanding to something that confusing, there will always be people that explain it in a faith based answer. There will always be science that strives to prove things and to explain things through proof of repetition.
I guess they are necessary because they go together

As for whoever mentioned that entertainment was like religion in their opinion that it is not necessary. Religion's necessity in society is debatable, but the bread and circuses are not debatable. The people are a mob, and they need to have something to entertain them and to keep their minds off of things in the world, not to forget them, but to relax. Plus, who the hell would not want entertainment. Sometimes its what makes life interesting, to be entertained

At 9/30/08 01:46 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 9/29/08 09:10 PM, aninjaman wrote:
But many fo our societys values are built on religious values.

Uh. No they aren't.

Not since the dark ages and 2008 has religious influence been so influential really imo.

youre kidding, right?

At 10/1/08 07:38 AM, DiscoveryOne wrote: The way I see it, the question of whether its needed is not really one to ask, as there will always be religion. There will always be things that cannot be explained. And as long as we want to bring order and understanding to something that confusing, there will always be people that explain it in a faith based answer. There will always be science that strives to prove things and to explain things through proof of repetition.
I guess they are necessary because they go together

It is trivial in this matter that there will always be questions left unanswered. Sure, people will perhaps make up an answer, but an entire religion!? That's not very likely. Once we get rid of religion, it'll be gone forever - same as when an animal species goes instinct: they don't just respawn ages later. Religion is the product of ancient ancestors, who were not as intelligent or educated as we are, and who therefore lived in a world where much indeed was mysterious. Heck, people were unaware of gravity, tidal streams and thought the sun rotated around the earth.

As for whoever mentioned that entertainment was like religion in their opinion that it is not necessary. Religion's necessity in society is debatable, but the bread and circuses are not debatable. The people are a mob, and they need to have something to entertain them and to keep their minds off of things in the world, not to forget them, but to relax. Plus, who the hell would not want entertainment. Sometimes its what makes life interesting, to be entertained

I agree.

At 10/1/08 06:42 AM, Ynek wrote: Personally, I have very mixed views on the role of religion in modern society.

On one hand, religion can inspire people on to do some wonderful things for themselves. I've seen religion get people off drugs, get people off drink, cure sex addiction, cure depression, and all manner of disorders which are so inherant in our modern society. So, if anything, religion can still serve a purpose in our daily lives.

One word: PLACEBO. It works, if you believe it does; God exists, all you need to do is believe it. We are capable of replacing religion with a far less dangerous placebo, like actual placebo pills, culture and (social) interaction. Like I've said in a earlier thread: "Religion is a placebo with side-effects."

Religion is, by my own, admittedly rather cold and sterile definition, a mental disease, whether beneficial or detrimental, that's what it is. It's a lapse in the logical, reasoning, rational part of the brain. Now, whilst this can improve the lives of some people, giving them a sense of hope and purpose, and a feeling of belonging, it can also be used to cloud the truth from those who would seek it.
It's a form of hypnosis/indoctrination that passes from one person to the other, usually from parent to child, a pattern that can be observed in many mental illnesses.

I agree, overall.

Religion = understanding your surroundings

The left side can change, the right always has to be there, unless you're insane. Religion just happens to be one of the easiest things to do it with. And of course you understand religion by first understanding science.

Religio . . . to bind. . . .religare

To bind behaviour. . . to abide by the rules . . . .theoretically Divine rules that bring to wellbeing and prosperity . . .there where they don't bring to wellbeing and prosperity, it is not worth the trouble to abide by religion.

By the way Asmodeo, do you believe in God? How has he been treating you latley?

Give my best to Saeklas . . . . . and tell him to stop ruining my existance. . .and to give me my stuff.

At 10/2/08 01:44 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 9/19/08 08:50 AM, poxpower wrote: I've never really seen you argue in any of these topics, all you do it go around saying you hate them.
Grow a pair of balls and defend your beliefs. Jeez.

ARGUING ON THE INTERNET ACCOMPLISHES SOMETHING

ESPECIALLY RELIGION. YOU CAN CONVINCE PEOPLE BY ARGUING RELIGION. I MEAN ITS NOT A PERSONAL THING OR ANYTHING

Actually, more than once I've gotten a PM from some person who says I changed their mind on some religious topic.

Have at you!