On Religion

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 27 Apr 2005 16:40

aright guys, focus, focus.

quoting marx doesnt really impress me, seeing how successful most of his endevors are/have been, especially since he apparently 'borrowed' some quotes himself. though, who doesnt...i know i do.

Professor=new best friend. im honestly sorry i was too lazy to look up a lot of scripture myself, and a lot earlier, though i try to argue based more on stuff people can relate to, as opposed to a document most people in this forum dont believe is accurate. but, you have my hearty thanks, Professor Skaggs.

there is evidence on both sides of the issue of evolution, likewise creationism. i dont know why creationism should be labeled a belief and evolution shouldnt be. oh wait, i do know why, because calling creationism more than a belief wouldnt make it any more believable to the people that dont accept it in the first place.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 27 Apr 2005 17:02

also very "interesting" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 27 Apr 2005 17:20

oh wait, i do know why, because calling creationism more than a belief wouldnt make it any more believable to the people that dont accept it in the first place.

Yup, that's exactly way. Creationists don't call it a belief, they call it a 'science'. It's the "science of creationsim".

Of course, most scientists ignore creationists because things that ignore the scientific method get pretty short shrift with real scientists. The evidence on the side of creationism is pretty darn slim...

Well, there's not really any point to this post, but i'm probably gonna post it anyway cause I already typed it up and all, and I hate to throw things away.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 27 Apr 2005 17:39

thrifty bastard

maybe im out of the loop, but i have NEVER heard anyone use the phrase "science of creationism" in fact, in many christian circles, the word science is nearly considered a swear

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 28 Apr 2005 06:07

comastalker wrote:also very "interesting" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

Sound like something out of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe", which, by the way, hits theaters tomorrow!!! It better be good.

slapdash21 wrote:maybe im out of the loop, but i have NEVER heard anyone use the phrase "science of creationism" in fact, in many christian circles, the word science is nearly considered a swear

No, I'm pretty sure they call it science. I don't remember who posted it, but it was something about a creationist science fair. Funny as hell. Creationists(to me) are just religious nuts holding on for dear life to what they belive is true (the bible). As far as I know, they want to believe that everything written in the bible is infalible (sp?) no matter how many time it can be proven wrong. As some wise fella once said, "Ignorance is bliss."

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 28 Apr 2005 06:08

delakong wrote:
comastalker wrote:also very "interesting" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism
Sound like something out of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe", which, by the way, hits theaters tomorrow!!! It better be good.

slapdash21 wrote:maybe im out of the loop, but i have NEVER heard anyone use the phrase "science of creationism" in fact, in many christian circles, the word science is nearly considered a swear

No, I'm pretty sure they call it science. I don't remember who posted it, but it was something about a creationist science fair. Funny as hell. Creationists(to me) are just religious nuts holding on for dear life to what they belive is true (the bible). As far as I know, they want to believe that everything written in the bible is infalible (sp?) no matter how many time it can be proven wrong. As some wise fella once said, "Ignorance is bliss." (See, I'm super smart, I can quote people to!!!)

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 28 Apr 2005 10:14

delakong wrote: No, I'm pretty sure they call it science. I don't remember who posted it, but it was something about a creationist science fair. Funny as hell.

That post was actually a link to a big joke site. That super extremist church wasn't real, just a big joke. None the less they arent exadgerating that much.

delakong · Post by **delakong** » 28 Apr 2005 10:44

Aw, that was hilarious. I really thought it was real.

Dat · Post by **Dat** » 28 Apr 2005 11:44

Back to the topic,

Active conversion is terrible. I think it cheapens religion. If someone goes out and discovers a religion fits how they want to live, that's something I can respect. I don't condone going up to people, handing them propoganda and telling them the right way to live their lives. Joining a religion this way is more like submission. People should join on their own accord alone. I think this also dilutes the religion by bringing in people who don't truly believe.

I sorta feel the same way about being born into a religion. I would want my kids to figure out on their own what makes sense to them. Forcing my religion upon them doesn't seem to have the same merit. There is less meaning in them doing rituals and practicing my religion of they didn't have choice.

The whole afterlife ultimatum thing sure throws a wrench into what I've said though. If people believe in heaven and hell I can see why they want to convert people and tend not to let their kids loose to find religion on their own. Spreading religion in that respect becomes noble because they're saving the converts and their kids.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Apr 2005 12:03

Okay, so there is this omipotent God in space watching over his favorite creation, humans, and he see's them killing each other over minor differences in the scripture he gave each culture.

How come God doesn't care to inform the planet on which is the one true religion ?

If God himself doesn't care to come and clarify the minor differences, why does man think they are worth dying over ?

junkyardjew · Post by **junkyardjew** » 28 Apr 2005 13:45

Oh but he did. God came to each and every religion and told their prophets that their religion was the right one, and that they should kill or convert every other religion.

The problem is too much certainty, not too little.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 28 Apr 2005 14:05

imperialism ain't specifically religious

that's a sociological/political problem; religions acting that way are just a sub-group

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Apr 2005 14:27

comastalker wrote:imperialism ain't specifically religious

Are you saying I can't point to examples of murderous actions based purely on differences derived from $RELIGION , or that you would rather not admit that such actions have taken place and prefer to blame the nationstate ?

How many hate crimes take place around the world because of one persons beliefs leading them to take violent action against the "sinners" ? These aren't actions endorsed by the evil governments, it's worshippers "defending" their $DIETY.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 28 Apr 2005 15:42

sorry, but whats the point of the dollar signs?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Apr 2005 15:46

It's a generic where it's not specific to one diety or religion.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 28 Apr 2005 16:27

the dollar marks a name-holder, replace it by anything similiar.

what I meant with my comment is just, that the tendency to overtake "others", no matter if it's their land or faith is not a tendency you can at all asociate with religions. It's just a name, a $macro for the same :
$imperialistic-behaviour there are more ways to replace it than just by "religious fundamentalism".

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 28 Apr 2005 16:34

you maybe remember I am radical anarchistic, it's a waste of energy to convince me of $DIETYs inherit "problem".
my "belief" doesn't restrict me to governments but all hierarchies which imply repression and all social entities where not all creatures are an equal.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 28 Apr 2005 16:36

comastalker wrote:no matter if it's their land or faith is not a tendency you can at all asociate with religions. It's just a name, a $macro for the same :

oups, I should re-read my posts...
I meant "in general".

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Apr 2005 16:39

I'm not clear on your point, and rather than flame your ass and completely miss the point you are trying to make, I'd like to ask for a more detailed explanation.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 28 Apr 2005 19:08

aright.

Dela wrote:No, I'm pretty sure they call it science. I don't remember who posted it, but it was something about a creationist science fair. Funny as hell. Creationists(to me) are just religious nuts holding on for dear life to what they belive is true (the bible). As far as I know, they want to believe that everything written in the bible is infalible (sp?) no matter how many time it can be proven wrong. As some wise fella once said, "Ignorance is bliss."

like seath said...joke site. and while some extremist idiotic 'religious types' might bother calling creationism a science, its a very small minority. actualy, that brings me to another point. there is a serious negative stereotype of christians/creationists...when people hear that you believe in God or creation itself, they seem to immediately picture you as a fanatical, completely irrational, often southern, abortion-clinic exploding (i dont support abortion, but of course dont consider sabotage and murder a reasonable solution...) yokel. there honestly is a lot of variation among believers.

JYJ wrote:Oh but he did. God came to each and every religion and told their prophets that their religion was the right one, and that they should kill or convert every other religion.

The problem is too much certainty, not too little.

sorry jared, even as a joke this is too ridiculous. well, the first part is clearly in jest (hopefully not a foolish assumption), but regarding the amount of certainty...ridiculous. its obvious that there isnt actual certainty among a group of people if individual sub-groups dont agree whatsoever, and are fighting because of the differences. if there was "too much certainty" (not to mention there is no such thing as too much certainty...its like too much death, or too pregnant, except this is a positive thing) then this discussion wouldnt take so dang long.

cameron, i think there are more examples of imperialism based on aquisition of land, power, and materials than of religious conversions. im not saying there arent examples of murderous action based on religious beliefs (the crusades, salem witch trials) but i think other factors have more sway in world conflict.

yeah comastalker...your last couple posts are somewhat incoherent, and not only because im none-too intellectual, and tired. on that, i agree cameron. also...at first i thought that

detailed explanation.

said "derailed explanation"

done for now.
go Team Discussion!