Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar Das_ALoveStory wrote: 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. ![]() "You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal Forum Rules Quote:Exactly! I was hoping you would come help me here Quote: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: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: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: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: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:Slow down, tough guy. Quote:No, but it was worth noting just for the sake of irony. Quote: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: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: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:No, you were comparing human spirit to God's, which is stupid. Quote: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: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: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:No, billions. And you said I was living in feudal times. Quote: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: staying classy "Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Das_ALoveStory 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. Das_ALoveStory wrote: You just did it this whole debate. Das_ALoveStory wrote: 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: 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: If you want to debate Stalin then start another thread and I'll intellectually destroy you there as well. Das_ALoveStory wrote: It's only stupid because it's not your god. Which was kind of the whole point. Das_ALoveStory wrote: 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: Suit yourself. Das_ALoveStory wrote: 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: 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: 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: Not. I was religious once before and never again. Das_ALoveStory wrote: 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: I stand corrected. Billions of different, conflicting beliefs followed by billions of different people. Exoprism 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. ![]() Dagoth Ur wrote: 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
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
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: Atheists, pagans and basically every human community throughout history have done both of those. Anything else? Che Burashka wrote: 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. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
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: Problem with this is that there is a strong argument to make that religion has produced more harm than good. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
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.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37 Party Bureaucrat Che Burashka wrote: 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. Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 3833
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo
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.
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37 Party Bureaucrat Che Burashka wrote: 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 Soviet America is Free America!
Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
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. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo Dagoth Ur wrote: 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.
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
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: 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. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||