religion

[Alexnova]

if other animals believed in god, i don't think this would go over so smoothly. just saying, it's kind of convenient that those who are benefited by the religion are the ones who practice it. to me, it feels more like man came before religion, and this is one of my points.

Then I'll say God came before man and around we go. I don't care too much to rationalize it because it just never seemed that important to me. I'm sure there's all sorts of info about this from a Christian perspective, in fact I believe in Genesis itself Noah was told by God that every living thing is for him to eat and to provide clothing if need be. I just remembered that Jesus himself ate fish, so I guess that's alright.

Animals believing in God? In a metaphysical sense all animals are somehow acting in respect towards God. It's a complicated theology formulated by Aquinas, I'll have to get it out if you are interested.

at least you're admitting it! i know a lot of people that would dance their way around this

I tried being a vegan before, it just wasn't the lifestyle for me. But yeah...

i could not possibly be more obvious that i'm doing the opposite of generalizing by saying everyone that i've asked, and even starting the statement with "i'm not saying this is you"

Well I mean in a majority aspect. I guess generalizing can work to a certain extent, but if this is my error forgive me.

then it becomes a matter of politics, which unfortunately, are usually religion/moral-based

Well it actually comes down to beliefs. We all have a belief in something, you couldn't even get out of bed if you didn't believe in something. So while certain people may appeal to their religion to support their politics, is that so much a bad thing? I'll illustrate what I'm talking about in a second but Orthodoxy teaches and adheres strictly to moral standards. However, the faithful often pick and choose what they agree with and what they disagree with or deem to be unfair or too difficult to accept as proper.

Now let's say for example we remove "God" or "transcendent morality" from the courtroom. Where the line of good and bad are blurred. Here's my example:
"Your honor. my client John Smith is innocent of Murder. As you can see by this chart, the movement of his arm is merely a series of electrical and chemical connections resulting in the plunging of a knife into the decedents chest."

"Plus, what we are calling a "knife" is merely a collection of minerals and bonding agents in a particular sequence that we label as "A Knife", but in reality the term has no meaning in the absolute sense. It is just inanimate stuff."

"In fact, the so called person who stands before you accused, is not "really".. John Smith. That is just a conventional label put upon him by his parents ( so called) in order to identify him. However, he is just a collection of chemicals and reactions and electrical impulses, without any sort of "soul" or existence outside these chemical and electrical reactions. The same goes for the decedent, "Mary Smith" who has no identifiable existence apart from being a big bag of chemicals."

"In sum, there was no "murder" because there is no independent existence of either objects or persons. Everything and everyone is a soulless object whose every action is the result of friction, electrical impulses or chemical reactions"

"Plus, his cousin did it."

this is the part i will never, ever, ever, ever, ever understand, nor do i care to. that's the main difference between us. i accept the fact that i COULD be wrong; where as you do not. just seems kind of close minded. you called luke close-minded for saying there is *definitely* no god, you're doing the exact same thing.

Let me clarify my assertion of that because in hindsight that comment was very offhanded on my part.

When I say that if someone pointed out a new biblical contradiction, Orthodox and Catholics alike would say "Well that's nice" it just doesn't have any bearing on us unlike our Protestant friends who hold to Biblical innerancy. Of course it becomes circular with them because they'll prove Scipture by using Scripture or explain away the "contradiction". Same thing with new scientific discoveries, it doesn't bother us at all.

However let me make this point very clear, if say for example the bones of Jesus were found, hypothetically speaking, we proved it by DNA or whatever way...I would cease to be a Christian. You would be very VERY surprised to hear responses from other Christians who would still be a Christian even if such were found. I guess they don't see how important that event is, because otherwise my faith would be in vain if we found his bones.

Let me know if this doesn't help understand where I am coming from.

see last statement.

Think about it. If someone comes out and says "It's ok to kill someone" they need to back up why it is ok to do so. Or why is it ok to sleep with alot of women and not get married? Don't they know feelings are involved, etc?

[fatlip]

I'm sure there's all sorts of info about this from a Christian perspective, in fact I believe in Genesis itself Noah was told by God that every living thing is for him to eat and to provide clothing if need be. I just remembered that Jesus himself ate fish, so I guess that's alright.

i know you don't take everything literally, but do you really believe the whole flood with Noah's Ark story? in a literal sense?

Here's my example:
"Your honor. my client John Smith is innocent of Murder. As you can see by this chart, the movement of his arm is merely a series of electrical and chemical connections resulting in the plunging of a knife into the decedents chest."

"Plus, what we are calling a "knife" is merely a collection of minerals and bonding agents in a particular sequence that we label as "A Knife", but in reality the term has no meaning in the absolute sense. It is just inanimate stuff."

"In fact, the so called person who stands before you accused, is not "really".. John Smith. That is just a conventional label put upon him by his parents ( so called) in order to identify him. However, he is just a collection of chemicals and reactions and electrical impulses, without any sort of "soul" or existence outside these chemical and electrical reactions. The same goes for the decedent, "Mary Smith" who has no identifiable existence apart from being a big bag of chemicals."

"In sum, there was no "murder" because there is no independent existence of either objects or persons. Everything and everyone is a soulless object whose every action is the result of friction, electrical impulses or chemical reactions"

"Plus, his cousin did it."

i don't think that would ever happen, no matter what.

[Element]

the worst thing about religious people is they will never know how wrong they were

[Alexnova]

i know you don't take everything literally, but do you really believe the whole flood with Noah's Ark story? in a literal sense?

With God all things are possible. However the only thing that makes me lean towards it actually happening in history are the oral traditions, like the Gilgamesh Epic, that were spreading around. Even the Mayans, if I'm not mistaken, had a similar ark story. So I don't know to be honest, but for me it's the spiritual meaning to the story which holds far more weight to me. To us the Church is the Ark of Salvation as it carries us through the stormy waters of this life to the calm wondrous world that lies at the end of our voyage.

If it's scientifically and mathematically impossible, so be it. It doesn't bother me.

i don't think that would ever happen, no matter what.

So did people who didn't think abortion would happen, or Nazism, or going to the moon, or finding the Americas, or whatever. Why rule out the impossible?

I'd love to hear why you think it would never happen.

[fatlip]

So did people who didn't think abortion would happen, or Nazism, or going to the moon, or finding the Americas, or whatever. Why rule out the impossible?

I'd love to hear why you think it would never happen.

none of those are the same thing as a trial at all. its arbitrary and really doesn't apply in a realistic manner.

and what do you mean "finding the americas?" there were natives here before whites. it's just that when the bible was written, no one knew of it yet except the people already living there (who did not believe in the christian god, go figure).

also, noah's ark:



and...

[Element]

i love ricky gervais but what he said at the end isn't true, if it rained enough to cover the highest mountain (which would be way more than 40 days) it would kill pretty much most of the fish.

[Element]

[Alexnova]

none of those are the same thing as a trial at all.

So what gives life that "sacredness" then? I mean obviously it's ok to slaughter babies in the womb of a mother, so why should this be any different? Why I brought up those other examples, just from the top of my head, was to illustrate what was once thought as impossible became possible.

and what do you mean "finding the americas?" there were natives here before whites.

I was referring to Spanish Colonization that happened. Of course there were natives.

it's just that when the bible was written, no one knew of it yet except the people already living there (who did not believe in the christian god, go figure).

]
It didn't matter if they knew them or not, the authors of the Bible. And now Native Americans are mostly Christian.

Hilarious. Your point was...?

So I'm an idiot and mentally insane, got it.

[Alexnova]

Ah Russell, let's see:
He couldn't prove 2 + 2 = 4
Was a philanderer.
Mocked his betters.
Berated his colleagues.
Wrote "philosophical" texts which were laughable and thus relegated himself to a general lecturer on the topic.

Even when one his so-called students, Wittgenstein, started actually doing some interesting work, he turned on him.

Bertrand Russell was a gifted mathematician born entirely too late. Just smoke from the failed project of logical positivism.

Trust me, the level of thought in Why is pretty much what Russell can bring to bear to most subjects outside his remarkable work within set theory.

I didn't watch the interview, it was probably him complaining about Protestant Christianity. After reading through some of Russel's Why I am not a Christian, the only adjective that I can come up with to describe his work is "asinine". Honestly, I didn't find it any more impressive than Dawkin's vapid and shallow approach. Some of his silliness relates to the fact that he a. doesn't understand causality, and b. thinks that because some Christians did some bad stuff, Christiany must be false.

Also, as a man, Paul Johnson described Russel as pretty deplorable, even despicable, in his personal life (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, chapter 8: "Bertrand Russell: A Case of Logical Fiddlesticks").

[Element]

that's great man. at least you didn't say he inspired hitler like most jesus freaks would have






but i beg thee to answer this.

let’s say the consensus is that our species, homo-sapiens has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years. in order to be christian you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about twenty five, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, war, bitterness, suffering, misery. all of that for about 98,000 years, heaven watches it with complete indifference, and then 2000 years ago thinks that’s enough of that, it’s time to intervene. the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the middle east. don’t let’s appear to the chinese where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization, let’s go to the desert and have another revelation. this is nonsense.

[Element]

Ah Russell, let's see:
He couldn't prove 2 + 2 = 4
Was a philanderer.
Mocked his betters.
Berated his colleagues.
Wrote "philosophical" texts which were laughable and thus relegated himself to a general lecturer on the topic.

Even when one his so-called students, Wittgenstein, started actually doing some interesting work, he turned on him.

Bertrand Russell was a gifted mathematician born entirely too late. Just smoke from the failed project of logical positivism.

Trust me, the level of thought in Why is pretty much what Russell can bring to bear to most subjects outside his remarkable work within set theory.

I didn't watch the interview, it was probably him complaining about Protestant Christianity. After reading through some of Russel's Why I am not a Christian, the only adjective that I can come up with to describe his work is "asinine". Honestly, I didn't find it any more impressive than Dawkin's vapid and shallow approach. Some of his silliness relates to the fact that he a. doesn't understand causality, and b. thinks that because some Christians did some bad stuff, Christiany must be false.

Also, as a man, Paul Johnson described Russel as pretty deplorable, even despicable, in his personal life (Paul Johnson, Intellectuals, chapter 8: "Bertrand Russell: A Case of Logical Fiddlesticks").

[Alexnova]

let’s say the consensus is that our species, homo-sapiens has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years. in order to be christian you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about twenty five, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, war, bitterness, suffering, misery. all of that for about 98,000 years, heaven watches it with complete indifference, and then 2000 years ago thinks that’s enough of that, it’s time to intervene. the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the middle east. don’t let’s appear to the chinese where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization, let’s go to the desert and have another revelation. this is nonsense.

I will just take one part of this. You have painted an inaccurate picture of primitive man.

All the aliments of Modern Man like bad teeth which you mentioned plus things like diabetes, cancer and heart disease did not exist in primitive populations of our species of Human. People were far more robust because they ate a natural human diet. Only now with all the processed foods, grains and sugar in our diet have we suffered like you mentioned.

American Indians generally slept late each morning. The time it took to do chores and hunt food averaged about three hours per day. Doesn't sound too horrible to me.

And people did not die on average when they were 25. Life expectancy was not much less than today. Child birth and the first five years of life was a problem. If you lived past five you would live a long healthy life. Trauma could get you early due to no good medical care.

God was indeed very gracious to our forefathers. Don't think otherwise.

[Element]

where the fuck did you go to school

[Alexnova]

Do I need to break this down? Alright I will. And lawl Christopher Hitchens who has been using that example for a number of years.

let’s say the consensus is that our species, homo-sapiens has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years. in order to be christian you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about twenty five, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, war, bitterness, suffering, misery. all of that for about 98,000 years, heaven watches it with complete indifference,

Assertion, without any evidence.

and then 2000 years ago thinks that’s enough of that, it’s time to intervene.

Because after that 98,000 years of preparation, man was ready, having produced the Theotokos.

the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the middle east.

Now, your really showing yourself to be an ignoramus: Palestine at the time was probably one of the most litterate parts of the enitre Roman Empire. And He didn't condemn anyone to human sacrifice. He sacrificed Himself.

don’t let’s appear to the chinese where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization, let’s go to the desert and have another revelation. this is nonsense.

You're an idiot, and a sophmore at that.

At the time of Christ, the Han Dynasty of China was promoting Confucianism, which has been founded nearly 5 centuries before Christ, as the state Creed. The Gospel may have reached China in the first century
http://www.chinaartnetworks.com/news/sh ... hp?id=1369" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At the latest, Christianity reached China in the 7th century. Confucius, in contrast, would not be known outside of the Far East for another thousand years, and then from translations of his works by Christian missionaries. If God wanted to baptize all nations, sending the Apostles from China would seem to have been counter productive.

The Romans had a civilization, far more literate with far more people able to read and study evidence.

Your "knowledge" of world history is nonsense.

[Element]

i overstated my point when i imply that noone could read there, because i think we can both agree that in both cultures literacy was very low and writing was reserved for scribes and priests. it's also true that china is very isolated by it's geography. nonetheless, i was being flippant.

human sacrifice is a congruent theme throughout the bible.

98,000 years of preparation..... white noise

which part of my assertion is without evidence? (besides the whole heaven watches thing) 100,000 is a low estimate for our specific species, our closest oldest known relative is ardipithicus ramidus, who lived 5 million years ago; not to mention we evolved from life that lived and died some 3 billion years ago.

mortality rates for just the US in the last 200 years:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

who gives a fuck if cavemen ate free range chickens and bug infested produce? what the fuck does that have to do with anything - before agriculture (a long fucking time) men were hunter gathering nomads who were barely recognizable as "human" in any modern sense.

plus, god only chose to reveal himself as yahweh to only one region. why i wonder, is it so that in different regions god seems to be completely different? curious.

[Jordan311]

Just watch the first 3 minutes



Later

[fatlip]

looooooooool @ "IM NOT THAT RETARDED!!!!!"

[KyleRayner]

<3 joe rogan

[EvenField2BeOn]

Institutionalized religion is a form of control. The original teachings obviously were written though the world’s largest telephone game where the end message is so far from the original meaning of what was trying to be communicated that we cannot separate the wheat from chaff. I don't deny that there many religious figures in history who hand mystical experience but interpreting the ancient text as virtual fact is a bit absurd because we can't even trust modern sources. How can you trust 100% text that has been handed down for thousands of years and twisted and tweaked depending on all the different interpretations and agenda's of the writers etc. It should not be taken as one hundred percent literal fact. The basic tenants are fine but when people literally believe the earth is 6000 years old etc sounds almost comical to me. Have you heard of carbon dating?

The radiation emanating from carbon can be measured and the rate of decay has shown human bones of 100,000 years old. And if you go into the anthropology department at Harvard and Yale or even the Smithsonian, there are multiple skeletons of differing sub human species before Homo sapiens came onto the scene and you can literally line them up and see the linear progression in increasing brain size, etc. It's seems like we adapted to the environmental conditions of the times through 100,000+ years. Or you can just read the texts, you can either believe what you can repeat, see and touch that is archeological evidence or just biblical text talking about Noah’s Ark and Fire and Brimstone and Satan and all the other super heroes like Zeus etc. There are thousands of religions in history what makes this one the only "right" one?

I always thought there were little truths spread among many religious teachings but more in a philosophical sense of living in harmony with your fellow man. If this were a court case it would be closed on the DNA evidence and carbon dating alone we don't live in the dark ages anymore we can rely on our repeatable observations across academic disciplines and through the scientific method or just push these ancient texts down people’s throats. It's pretty obvious which the proper way to move forward is. No hard feeling, I believe in some bigger order and meaning to the Universe just not a personal God that appears in the Bible, Koran or any other formalized, institutionalized religion. Too much evidence that flies in the face of those texts.

[Element]

I always thought there were little truths spread among many religious teachings but more in a philosophical sense of living in harmony with your fellow man.

the sentiment of living in harmony with your fellow man predates monotheism, and was more eloquently written by the greeks.