a new low for religion

[cS bIsHoP]

A new low for religion? I'm reasonably sure religion is static. A new low for religious bigotry? Sure. Actually, that's not even true.

I come here less and less frequently, and I don't know why I do at all anymore. Probably boredom. All I know is that as much as I think religion is stupid; I'd much rather have it around than to be surrounded by a bunch of whiny and bitchy atheists.

 

[Jokerman]

as much as I think religion is stupid; I'd much rather have it around than to be surrounded by a bunch of whiny and bitchy atheists.

I'd rather be surrounded by a bunch of whiny and bitchy atheists.

 

[Pittsey]

A new low for religion? I'm reasonably sure religion is static. A new low for religious bigotry? Sure. Actually, that's not even true.

I come here less and less frequently, and I don't know why I do at all anymore. Probably boredom. All I know is that as much as I think religion is stupid; I'd much rather have it around than to be surrounded by a bunch of whiny and bitchy atheists.

You get bored? What are you 8?

Religion isn't stupid anyway. It was brilliantly conceived, and has stood the test of time more than anything else man has created. Religious rituals were being performed by "humans" before we were homo sapiens.

 

[dilla]

But there is concrete proof of dinosaurs, and the age of the earth. Both which contradict the stories in Holy books.

Also, a theory based on scientific fact is more appealing to me, than one based on stories. I think common sense tells us that as we as homo sapiens become older as a species we make further discoveries and break throughs. We don't keep using the same inventions from 2000 years ago. We improve them and increase our knowledge. Why would religion be any different? We have outgrown religion, there is no evidence that magic exists, and all people base their faith on are old texts. The whole concept of it is flawed. If it was the word of God, surely it'd be perfect.

I said "theory on the beginning of life." Life began much earlier than the time of the dinosaurs. I certainly believe dinosaurs exist. You don't really need to know much science. Head to a museum and see the fossilized dinosaur bones and trilobites in stone. Science can explain a good bit before the dinosaurs.

It's when scientists hypothesize that humans came (indirectly) from bacteria and people accept it as truth without understanding how the conclusion was reached that is an issue. I don't think there is even much evidence for that and it still remains a proposed idea more than accepted fact. Unlike the existence of dinosaurs.

That's not to say scientists are wrong but instead the public (people that aren't dealing with the information first-hand) should not pass this off as fact let alone use it in an argument against religion and its teachings. My views on "humans came from bacteria" and other VERY far-fetched hypotheses is to not outright deny them, but instead wait for it to be supported by concrete evidence. Which is more than what religion has done so far, but if science is merely trying to out-do religion and not expand due to simply gaining knowledge, then science will only be hindered by itself and its pissing contest with religion.

And I don't know what religion is your straw man in this debate, but I'll assume it's Christianity and/or Islam. They are easy targets, as well as the two largest religions. I want to see people carefully dissect less populous religions and bring their ideas to question.

Harry Potter is about "magic." Religion is not. To lump Sikhism and Daoism together is no different than lumping people of the same group together and forming a stereotype.

 

[Flipmo]

I'd rather not be surrounded by anyone that's whiny or bitchy. Religious or Atheist.

 

[Pittsey]

That's not to say scientists are wrong but instead the public (people that aren't dealing with the information first-hand) should not pass this off as fact let alone use it in an argument against religion and its teachings. My views on "humans came from bacteria" and other VERY far-fetched hypotheses is to not outright deny them, but instead wait for it to be supported by concrete evidence. Which is more than what religion has done so far, but if science is merely trying to out-do religion and not expand due to simply gaining knowledge, then science will only be hindered by itself and its pissing contest with religion..

I agree. But... Science is about theories and then presenting the evidence. No-one has said Humans definitely came from Bacteria. It is a theory based on fact. Science will then either proof the fact, eventually. Or change it's theory. A bit like how the earth was theorised of being round a couple of hundred years before the evidence backed that up.

I am not saying how the human species evolved. But I could go out on a limb and say it wasn't by a man who created us in his own image in a day.

And I don't know what religion is your straw man in this debate, but I'll assume it's Christianity and/or Islam. They are easy targets, as well as the two largest religions. I want to see people carefully dissect less populous religions and bring their ideas to question.

Harry Potter is about "magic." Religion is not. To lump Sikhism and Daoism together is no different than lumping people of the same group together and forming a stereotype.

Religious stories are full of "magic". They make the impossible, possible. Like Superman.

What's wrong with stereotyping? To say woman are poor drivers is a stereotype, and mostly true.

 

[dilla]

I agree. But... Science is about theories and then presenting the evidence. No-one has said Humans definitely came from Bacteria. It is a theory based on fact. Science will then either proof the fact, eventually. Or change it's theory. A bit like how the earth was theorised of being round a couple of hundred years before the evidence backed that up.

I am not saying how the human species evolved. But I could go out on a limb and say it wasn't by a man who created us in his own image in a day. Right, but my original post specifically mentioned the origin of life. I picked that subject for a reason as both science and religion have their theories, yet neither are substantive. If Jesus can't be conceived immaculately, how can we come from something we can't even see. Hmm, does that ring a bell? A certain someone "we can't see" that made us that lives above us? According to some, he doesn't even exist.

I'm not saying bacteria doesn't exist. I know it does, but I'm posing these questions to illustrate a point that what ever a scientist says, people gobble up. When most people have never sat with a microscope and even seen a bacteria or any other microorganism. They just believe it's there because someone said so. That's how religion is. So why is it wrong when believers do it but not when non-believers do it? It's the same idea and thought-process. Just different results.



Religious stories are full of "magic". They make the impossible, possible. Like Superman.

A lot of the times, religious people take morals from these stories as they illustrate life lessons. Sure, you can learn them without it. Some people take these stories to be literal. That doesn't mean you neglect the ones that merely take a lesson from the story and apply it to their lives. And move on.

What's wrong with stereotyping? To say woman are poor drivers is a stereotype, and mostly true.
Because I have learned that people who stereotype do it behind the stereotyped's backs. It's easy to tell a woman she's a shit driver. Go tell a Black person he probably stole his car and used your tax money to buy his clothes. If you don't believe in that stereotype, find one you do believe in and if you can't say it to a stranger, then... you know...

In this day and age where people are trying to move away from social behavior that is completely detrimental to society (social progress), re-enforcing stereotypes is really not the best thing to mention after a post about scientific progress. Because it just sounds hypocritical.

......

 

[Pittsey]

We can argue and twist points left and right. You take one thing and run to an extreme with it, I take another and do the same. You are comparing apples and oranges. Do we really need to be biological scholars to take some information, digest it and form an opinion? By that same prognosis we also aren't able to pick clothes we like unless we have a doctorate in fashion (I know they don't exist).... See what I mean by extremes!!!

It is not hypocritical to talk about scientific progress and then talk about stereotypes. It's human behaviour. Who said being a hypocrite was wrong, was being hypocritical. We are all hypocrites. It's called personality. If you aren't a hypocrite, you are a liar.

I am sick of religious talk. Those who have a genuine interest in religion are usually atheists. They want to find the answers but only find more questions. Those that believe in faith usually blindly follow (a stereotype from me, I admit).

Anyway... I thought you put your points well, and I now want to try and stay out of this thread.

Anyway... You said earlier about targeting the big religions. I have to be honest only Islam and Catholicism really irk me.

 

[cS bIsHoP]

You get bored? What are you 8?

Religion isn't stupid anyway. It was brilliantly conceived, and has stood the test of time more than anything else man has created. Religious rituals were being performed by "humans" before we were homo sapiens.

Very nice deductive reasoning skills there, friend; I get bored therefore I must be 8. Bravo!

I'm pretty sure you are just controverting me saying that religion is stupid for its own sake, but I was insinuating that believing these holy texts are true or are a good code to live by is dumb. However, it is great mythology/poetry.

I'd rather not be surrounded by anyone that's whiny or bitchy. Religious or Atheist.

Granted, but most of the atheists I know are like this. The proof is in this board's pudding.

 

[dilla]

We can argue and twist points left and right. You take one thing and run to an extreme with it, I take another and do the same. You are comparing apples and oranges. Do we really need to be biological scholars to take some information, digest it and form an opinion? By that same prognosis we also aren't able to pick clothes we like unless we have a doctorate in fashion (I know they don't exist).... See what I mean by extremes!!!

It is not hypocritical to talk about scientific progress and then talk about stereotypes. It's human behaviour. Who said being a hypocrite was wrong, was being hypocritical. We are all hypocrites. It's called personality. If you aren't a hypocrite, you are a liar.

I know. I realize that. But I was trying to say we are all hypocritical. We are all unhealthy. We are all "whatever." But over time (centuries) society has tried to decrease the traces of these impurities as much as possible. To be less racist or discriminatory. No one is completely healthy or completely vegan or whatever, but you can certainly, asymptotically get closer to it. You can eat less fatty foods, not judge others in everyday instances, and be more tolerant of ideas you do not agree with. We don't kill gays anymore, right? That's a big step. But we still ban them from certain places or activities, right? That's just one example. And now a few places are allowing gay marriages. Baby steps. There will always people that oppose this heavily. These people will never go away. But at least outside of that fact, homosexuals have fewer and fewer problems with being treated equally.

I am sick of religious talk. Those who have a genuine interest in religion are usually atheists. They want to find the answers but only find more questions. Those that believe in faith usually blindly follow (a stereotype from me, I admit).

Anyway... I thought you put your points well, and I now want to try and stay out of this thread.

Anyway... You said earlier about targeting the big religions. I have to be honest only Islam and Catholicism really irk me.
And I respect that. But when people say statements like "religion should just die!" I think it's a bit ignorant. You haven't said it, but I have read it all over the internet.

And it's slowly starting to come to light that atheism can be just as ignorant as religion. Well, some of the people in it. I can't take the people that said "religion should die'" and then assume other atheists (such as yourself?) believe the same thing. Thuggie is Sikh. I don't know if he follows it, but if he did and he read "fuck religion" by someone who was really just referring to Christianity or Islam or Judaism, it seems a bit unfair.

I don't know why shit like this is posted in Our Block. I just recently came back and the front page is filled with this filth. It seems like it's started to have these long, drawn-out arguments that go no where.

.....

 

[Pittsey]

Very nice deductive reasoning skills there, friend; I get bored therefore I must be 8. Bravo!

I'm pretty sure you are just controverting me saying that religion is stupid for its own sake, but I was insinuating that believing these holy texts are true or are a good code to live by is dumb. However, it is great mythology/poetry.

.

And by my sherlock Holmes skills it seems you must be bored again. Try to get a life and you will no longer have to be bored, or masturbate over pictures of girls (or boys).

 

[Pittsey]

.....

Gays aren't banned from any activities or places that I know of, in the Uk. Much to religious people's disgust (I have heard it) they are allowed to get married in Churches or Mosques.

I agree though, each person is entitled to their own beliefs. But religion shouldn't be taught as fact in school, Religious schools should be banned and religion has no place in politics. It should be a separate.

 

[dilla]

Gays aren't banned from any activities or places that I know of, in the Uk. Much to religious people's disgust (I have heard it) they are allowed to get married in Churches or Mosques.

I agree though, each person is entitled to their own beliefs. But religion shouldn't be taught as fact in school, Religious schools should be banned and religion has no place in politics. It should be a separate.

They still have to deal with this shit, regardless of where they're at: http://www.google.com/search?source...gc.r_pw.&fp=39b0a615b729321b&biw=1276&bih=639

But I did not know gay marriage was legal in the UK. Although, I was speaking from my perspective here in the States.

About religion in school, I agree it shouldn't be preached, but you can't simply ignore it. When you teach history, such as the Crusades, will you just teach students that all Christians are barbaric? How will you explain the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan issues? Religion should be taught in a school, and that school should be a church, mosque, or any other religious institution. But to bar individuals from knowledge of religion, especially in the States where you will have a Jew, Muslim, Christian, and an atheist in the same classroom, is to deprive them knowledge of human history and also an understanding of their peers' heritage/tradition/history/etc. It'll be like listening to a Clean version of an album, where there will be just blanks where religion should be, but it's been removed or censored.

Teaching things like Noah's Ark or the Mahabharata in a public school as being 100% true, though, sure, that's wrong. If parents want that, they pay extra for a private school and send their children there.

 

[Pittsey]

They still have to deal with this shit, regardless of where they're at: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=gays attacked in uk#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=gays attacked in uk&pbx=1&oq=gays attacked in uk&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=9121l10779l1l11039l9l8l5l0l0l3l591l1547l4-1.2l3&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=39b0a615b729321b&biw=1276&bih=639

But I did not know gay marriage was legal in the UK. Although, I was speaking from my perspective here in the States.

About religion in school, I agree it shouldn't be preached, but you can't simply ignore it. When you teach history, such as the Crusades, will you just teach students that all Christians are barbaric? How will you explain the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan issues? Religion should be taught in a school, and that school should be a church, mosque, or any other religious institution. But to bar individuals from knowledge of religion, especially in the States where you will have a Jew, Muslim, Christian, and an atheist in the same classroom, is to deprive them knowledge of human history and also an understanding of their peers' heritage/tradition/history/etc. It'll be like listening to a Clean version of an album, where there will be just blanks where religion should be, but it's been removed or censored.

Teaching things like Noah's Ark or the Mahabharata in a public school as being 100% true, though, sure, that's wrong. If parents want that, they pay extra for a private school and send their children there.

I meant Creationist theory. Of course religion should be taught.

 

[cS bIsHoP]

And by my sherlock Holmes skills it seems you must be bored again. Try to get a life and you will no longer have to be bored, or masturbate over pictures of girls (or boys).

I think you are implying that I should be ashamed of my rigorous masturbation regimen, but I am not. Hugs and Kisses.

 

[Euphanasia]

Yes, killing one child is the worst thing a person of faith has ever done.

No, but if it was? Wouldn't that be enough?

 

[Sebastian]

I'd rather not be surrounded by anyone that's whiny or bitchy. Religious or Atheist.

Are you the fucking Mahatma Ghandi of this message board?!

 

[Flipmo]

If I'm Mahatma Gandhi, you're Nathuram Godse... (I have my eye on you...)

 

[dilla]

Gandhi**

 

[S O F I]

Are you the fucking Mahatma Ghandi of this message board?!

your friend LOL'ed at my FB joke.