Religious Dialogue

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

It makes me angry when atheists pretend that we are dealing with insignificance. No, this is the question of life, not ponies not spaghetti nothing! This is about human history and beliefs held the world over.

Unfortunately, your anger is burying the point that I was making, which is about unverifiable discourses abstracted from the practices that spawned it. I would expand on it, but your vitriolic tone makes me less than eager to do so. Instead, I'll just say that I agree that these matters deal with existential questions, which are not insignificance, but, the problem is how they are "solved", often through a Cartesian dualism that ironically erases their true spirituality and thus means the negation of religious significance.

Quote:

Also you claim Islam is incompatible with daimat then say you can't explain how. That's a shit argument and we both know it. No matter how much you fundamentalist atheists piss and moan none of you have presented an adequate case for why religious people cannot be good comrades or communists. Rather you all appeal to conventional bourgeoisie ethics and infantile far-left disorders. Just like anarchists decry the state as inherently bourgeoisie so does your sort claim that religion is inherantly bourgeoisie. Seizure of the state is meaningless if it doesn't include seizure of social institutions and cultural powerbases. And new atheist cults won't fit the bill either.

Exactly! I was hoping you would come help me here

Quote:

How is it a fundamentalist claim. Atheism is the absence of belief. For example, if you were born on an isolated island you would grow up with no concept of monotheism. Your the one stepping off the boat with your beliefs and presenting claims. The isolated man has no claims about god because god doesn't exist in his reality. Atheism often is wrongly defined as the denial that there is a god. It is properly defined as the absence of belief, which inherently has no claims to make. You can't prove a negative.

Lies. Most Atheists aren't actually Atheists but whiny crybaby god-haters who type away their sorrows on a laptop in a coffee shop of a first world country. Why does it seem that the only point of their belief is to try and be a smug @$$hole and make fun of others? Because they all know the deep dark truth; they will be repenting religious believers in ten years time who speak of the days they were young and crazy.
And now Exporism.

Quote:

The most you could claim with that piece of nonsense is that he created us and that's it. Literally. Religion has contributed nothing to science, philosophy, economics etc. Except futile theological debates which have zero impact on all other people's day to day life.

Religion maybe hasn't develpoed many technology, but it has created fantastic arts, literature, paintings, architecture and has helped more people through life than any Atheism ever has.

Quote:

Need I go on? It's embarrassing that I even have to explain how fallacious this type of reasoning is.

I've never seen a religion use that logic. I've seen people who refuse to man up and accept that religious people have valid beliefs.

Quote:

Lol. Nice to see you admit your idealism.

I'm not a complete materialist. DUH. I believe in God. Either way, using morals to defend yourself is much worse for somebody like you.

Quote:

As far as you know? I just asked for sources to back up your claim, the same thing you've asked everyone else here. Nice double standards.

Can't remember the claim as I'm writing, please include in your next responce that I'll have to dissect and throw away.

Quote:

Right back at you.

Slow down, tough guy.

Quote:

This isn't a debate about Stalin.

No, but it was worth noting just for the sake of irony.

Quote:

What a nonsense statement that was. It's not hard to understand that when we're talking about numbers and statistics, we deal with numbers. Religion has nothing to do with numbers, except for the pointless debates about how many gods there are, and everything to do with evidence. Of course, since you have no evidence, you resort to the numbers game.

Please, for the love of Richard Dawkins (or whoever you worship), please don't pretend that numbers are just things that are there that we don't ever use for analyzing anything. What I was saying is,it's really ignorant to just assume that the vast, vast ,vast majority of the population is stupid.

Quote:

Morals" evolve in parallel with the material conditions. This is why we don't have a thousand wives, launch genocides or stone children anymore, like the Bible allows.

Oh, so morals do exist now, and not only that, they are intertwined with the material processes! Also, we also don't slaughter millions, turn nations into police states and butcher populations as Stalin would allow.

Quote:

Where did I say Republicans were the only imperialists on earth? By now, I've sort of come to expect that you see things which aren't really there.

It sounded as if you were limiting imperialism to them. You are right, sometimes I do "see things". In the beginning of this debate, I saw you coming up with insightful comments.

Quote:

Who the hell is Bill Mahr and Joe McBob? I compared an "omnipotent being" to another imaginary "omnipotent being" and you getting mad.

No, you were comparing human spirit to God's, which is stupid.

Quote:

Only god knows... could you drone that sentence any more than you already have? Here's a tip you might want to think about in your next post: We're not living in feudalism any more with the Church pulling all the strings answering to no one when they make erroneous claims, it's the 21st century and most people are decent enough to provide the evidence of their claims rather than make abstract, idealist statements. The only place you can get away with saying things like that is at church or if you're the American president. Everywhere else, you get laughed at.

Funny how in the 21st century where the church doesn't "pull all the strings" people are still largely and vastly religious ! by the way, no you.

Quote:

I'm not comparing myself with him and you haven't answered the question. And the reason is because you know the Bible and the Qur'an are terrible books that present an egotistical god obsessed with having humans worship him.

If I was God, I'd be way worse. You would too. In my mind, me worshiping him is more than justified. He created everything, the universe, me, my life, everything. That deserves worship. God just wants us to understand that we aren't God.

Quote:

You mad? Your "god" is becoming more and more insignificant by the second. There is no big brother fairy in the sky watching me on the toilet. There is no sky god who cares about whether I'm eating a piece of bacon or drinking vodka. There is no fairy father that has a son and holy ghost (that are yet all himself) and wormed his way into the womb of Mary to create a miraculous virgin birth only to later kill himself on a tree.
The Bible and the Qur'an will one day take their rightful place, being found only in museums alongside the Rosetta Stone and Mein Kampf, becoming no more than a 30 minute history class on 1st century mythology.

hahaha! Now you sound like the preachers who walk around telling us the end is near! REPENT! STOP BELIEVING IN A RELIGION BECAUSE ONE DAY IT WON'T EXIST!
Also, one day you'll wake up, tired and old, and realized that you became everything you hated: a conservative Christian.
Oh, and one day in schools they'll teach about how nihilistic punks once cried for attention by thrashing religion, and then the class will laugh and go on with their lives.

Quote:

Beliefs held the world over? Do you mean to say millions of different, conflicting beliefs held by millions of different people?

No, billions. And you said I was living in feudal times.

Quote:

Unfortunately, your anger is burying the point that I was making, which is about unverifiable discourses abstracted from the practices that spawned it. I would expand on it, but your vitriolic tone makes me less than eager to do so. Instead, I'll just say that I agree that these matters deal with existential questions, which are not insignificance, but, the problem is how they are "solved", often through a Cartesian dualism that ironically erases their true spirituality and thus means the negation of religious significance.

Are you trying to outword me? I don't know what "Cartesian Dualism" is, and it just sounds like you're hiding behind a dictionary, but I disagree.

Quote:

I don't know what you're talking about, but I disagree.

staying classy

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Religion maybe hasn't develpoed many technology, but it has created fantastic arts, literature, paintings, architecture and has helped more people through life than any Atheism ever has.

Those are human inventions. Is the light bulb an atheist invention just because Edison was an atheist? Nope, just a plain old human invention. Why do I find myself repeating everything? Again, religion has contributed zero to humanity. A lot of former religionists will contradict the point that it "helped them through life". Most Atheists report feeling so much more liberated having given up the opium so you can't even make that claim.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

I've never seen a religion use that logic

You just did it this whole debate.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

I'm not a complete materialist. DUH. I believe in God. Either way, using morals to defend yourself is much worse for somebody like you.

Of course you're not a materialist, that's why you make such idiotic assertions.

Maybe morals isn't a good word to use because of the religious connotations. We both define morals differently and you're trying to work up the argument that atheists have no morals. Sorry but not going to work. I define morals as a set of standard norms that society expects everyone to live by collectively and which have evolved in a dialectical fashion. Whereas you believe they dropped from the sky when the sky god realized that he had created a botched brew of humans who were eating the pigs he created the day before.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Please, for the love of Richard Dawkins (or whoever you worship), please don't pretend that numbers are just things that are there that we don't ever use for analyzing anything. What I was saying is,it's really ignorant to just assume that the vast, vast ,vast majority of the population is stupid.

I don't worship anyone because I'm not that insecure. I'm not assuming that the "vast, vast, vast majority of the population is stupid". Religion once served a purpose, it's purpose is now over; it has been replaced by science and is now a useless vestige left lurking in society. Some people are gullible, some are bound by social obligations and some are simply indoctrinated into religion from childhood. The reason there are so many religionists is usually because of the latter and hardly any of them are religious because they've studied the evidence.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Oh, so morals do exist now, and not only that, they are intertwined with the material processes! Also, we also don't slaughter millions, turn nations into police states and butcher populations as Stalin would allow.

If you want to debate Stalin then start another thread and I'll intellectually destroy you there as well.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

No, you were comparing human spirit to God's, which is stupid.

It's only stupid because it's not your god. Which was kind of the whole point.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Funny how in the 21st century where the church doesn't "pull all the strings" people are still largely and vastly religious

! by the way, no you.

Funny how you don't understand diamat and the reasons why that is. As I said before, the "vast, vast, vast majority of people" are born (read: indoctrinated) into religion, they don't say to themselves "wow the world was created in 6 days? seems legit".

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

If I was God, I'd be way worse.

Suit yourself.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

You would too.

No I wouldn't. For a start, I'd let people eat pork and drink alcohol. I wouldn't have any such thing as a hell and I wouldn't force people to worship me by threat of eternal punishment. This all makes me more merciful, more loving and more compassionate than your god ever could be but, of course, you're going to deny it.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

In my mind, me worshiping him is more than justified. He created everything, the universe, me, my life, everything. That deserves worship. God just wants us to understand that we aren't God.

Why does that deserve worship? Do we tell cars to worship us just because we created them? Nope.... And if we did a rational person would eventually say: Wow, you guys have a pretty big ego.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

hahaha! Now you sound like the preachers who walk around telling us the end is near! REPENT! STOP BELIEVING IN A RELIGION BECAUSE ONE DAY IT WON'T EXIST!

It will probably always exist...albeit, as an embarrassment. It will get to the point where no one will want to admit it in public. Kind of like the flat-earth nutjobs. It's already somewhat embarrassing for a Christian to preach their 3-in-1, virgin-born, violently genocidal, human sacrificial, tree-dieing god in public. No one thinks it's cool anymore, they just put headphones in, turn up the music and ignore their crazy ass.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Also, one day you'll wake up, tired and old, and realized that you became everything you hated: a conservative Christian.

Not. I was religious once before and never again.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

Oh, and one day in schools they'll teach about how nihilistic punks once cried for attention by thrashing religion, and then the class will laugh and go on with their lives.

lolmad. Sorry but religiosity is decreasing. In fact, many self-proclaimed Christians nowadays aren't even religious in any meaningful sense. As Bart Ehrman noted, most Christians have read the latest Dan Brown book but none of them have read the Bible. Looks like god's holy word is becoming so unbearable to even the Christians that they've started to turn to Harry Potter and Twilight novels. Personally, I've read the whole thing and it's quite entertaining when you read it as an ancient mythical piece of stupidity rather than holy writ.

Das_ALoveStory wrote:

No, billions.

I stand corrected. Billions of different, conflicting beliefs followed by billions of different people.

Exoprism wrote:

Those are human inventions. Is the light bulb an atheist invention just because Edison was an atheist? Nope, just a plain old human invention. Why do I find myself repeating everything? Again, religion has contributed zero to humanity. A lot of former religionists will contradict the point that it "helped them through life". Most Atheists report feeling so much more liberated having given up the opium so you can't even make that claim.

While I agree that religion, iself, cannot invent things, it is wrong to claim religion has contributed nothing. Almost all of our scientific development up until the 20th century was done by monks and otherwise religious people (and by religious I mean highly affiliated with the church). Society plays a bigger role than most individuals and for the gross majority of human existence one religion or another has dominated society.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

While I agree that religion, iself, cannot invent things, it is wrong to claim religion has contributed nothing. Almost all of our scientific development up until the 20th century was done by monks and otherwise religious people (and by religious I mean highly affiliated with the church). Society plays a bigger role than most individuals and for the gross majority of human existence one religion or another has dominated society.

Because monks and people "highly affiliated with the church" had access to more resources, education and information than commoners. This isn't a big secret. But again, in pagan Greece where many advances were made, no one gives credit to Greek mythology for it. Neither do we credit atheism for the current advances being made by scientists who are predominantly atheists. So I return to my original proposition, what has religion contributed to humanity? If it's hard for you to think of something then why believe?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” - Seneca

Yeah.. it's not like some of the greatest buildings that mankind built had anything to do with religion... or if music was ever inspired by it... I'm sure that Bach might have written his Christmas Oratorio just for his son's birthday.

Che Burashka wrote:

Yeah.. it's not like some of the greatest buildings that mankind built had anything to do with religion... or if music was ever inspired by it... I'm sure that Bach might have written his Christmas Oratorio just for his son's birthday.

Atheists, pagans and basically every human community throughout history have done both of those. Anything else?

Che Burashka wrote:

Yeah.. it's not like some of the greatest buildings that mankind built had anything to do with religion... or if music was ever inspired by it... I'm sure that Bach might have written his Christmas Oratorio just for his son's birthday.

If your justifying religion and the pain and ignorance it has inflicted upon human society by pointing out that it produced some nice artists and architects all I have to say is . Perhaps you should study Karl Marx who gave us one of the greatest contributions to mankind free from divine inspiration.

yeah.. all hail the all-mighty Karl Marx...
Come on, grow up! Admit there are good products of religion, as there are bad sides. It's like you blaming Communism for the purges, the khmer rouge or Johnstown.

Che Burashka wrote:

yeah.. all hail the all-mighty Karl Marx...
Come on, grow up! Admit there are good products of religion, as there are bad sides. It's like you blaming Communism for the purges, the khmer rouge or Johnstown.

Problem with this is that there is a strong argument to make that religion has produced more harm than good.

Now... that's another question. It's not the same to say that anything good ever came out of it, than saying it's produced more harm than good.

Che Burashka wrote:

Now... that's another question. It's not the same to say that anything good ever came out of it, than saying it's produced more harm than good.

I've been trying to stay out of this conversation, but wouldn't the right question to ask whether these good things occured purely because of religion, or whether other social forces could have produced them as well.

Well, if you don't believe that the best way for your ruler's soul to reach the Afterlife is through a huge Pyramid, I doubt you'll build such a big one.
Or you wouldn't write music dedicated to your God, if you don't believe in one.
Religion has been a moving force throughout history. Sometimes going together with material development, sometimes going against it.

Without religion, would we have buildings - of course. But we wouldn't have the work of art that some temples, cathedrals or mosques are.
Same goes for music, we'd have it too, but we'd miss some of the best masterpieces in history. The same goes for painting and all kinds of arts.

Che Burashka wrote:

Well, if you don't believe that the best way for your ruler's soul to reach the Afterlife is through a huge Pyramid, I doubt you'll build such a big one.
Or you wouldn't write music dedicated to your God, if you don't believe in one.
Religion has been a moving force throughout history. Sometimes going together with material development, sometimes going against it.

Without religion, would we have buildings - of course. But we wouldn't have the work of art that some temples, cathedrals or mosques are.
Same goes for music, we'd have it too, but we'd miss some of the best masterpieces in history. The same goes for painting and all kinds of arts.

I'm not questioning that, but they created art and poetry in ancient Greece too. As did Shakespeare. We built castles for defense, and we built big things just to prove we were more bad ass.

There's an important distinction between whether religious forces happened to do something, or whether religious forces were the only ones who could have done it

Dude you're completely missing the point just like expoprism and red_bull. It's not that without religion we would have created nothing but the argument that religion has contributed nothing is clearly retarded. Exoprism's answer is a little different but completely ignores social development and the uniqueness it imparts. The world looks the way it does (our contributions to it anyways) because of our religions of our past. They raised countless generations of humans and to act as though that hasn't had a drastic effect on our cultural and social existences is as if to say that humans are what they are because that's what they are.

Also I like how you guys keep mentioning ancient Greece as though pagan religious accomplishments are separate from monotheist achievements. Actually it's even funnier when you consider that thisline of logic stems from monotheist defamation of polytheistic peoples.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Also I like how you guys keep mentioning ancient Greece as though pagan religious accomplishments are separate from monotheist achievements. Actually it's even funnier when you consider that thisline of logic stems from monotheist defamation of polytheistic peoples.

I also think that it's funny how much is mentioned about the "logical Greeks" while nobody is talking about the Muslim acquisition of astronomy, geometry, algebra, etc. Obviously religion had a hand in that. Ethnocentrism is crap.

The Arabic civilization was the most advanced one in Europe (Middle East and North Africa) for some time however something happened and at one point they started to significantly lag behind Europe in pretty much every way. That might be explained by the fact that the whole "Arabic World" was of course conquered by the Ottomans whose empire quickly "burned out" after defeats in the 16th and especially 17th century.

The works of Arabic scientists were introduced to whole Europe by Christian monks,not the Ottomans.

They didn't lag behind Europe, Europe continued to be in the Dark Ages until the Crusades brought Arab, and Ottoman ideas to Europe. That's also why the Crusades overwhelmingly failed

Quote:

They didn't lag behind Europe, Europe continued to be in the Dark Ages until the Crusades brought Arab, and Ottoman ideas to Europe.

Well,first of all some historians today dispute the so called "Dark Ages". Although i wouldn't really agree with them completely. But 12th century Europe was certainly more advanced than 7th century Europe (the real "dark age").

What you're saying is true actually,but by 15th-16th century the Arabic world and civilization (all a part of the Ottoman Empire) certainly started lagging far behind Europe.