|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:40 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Quote: Quote: Quote: To wrap it all up, I noticed earlier you said that you accepted that atheism had problems too, and you just were mad at me for saying atheism has more problems that religion. If this is true, then why is it that every time I point out something bad that atheism has done, you come up with a weak reason why that wasn't the fault of atheism and how christianity could've done the same thing and how atheism never hurt a fly? Because the examples you've used aren't actual examples of atheistic regimes. Yes, their leaders may have been atheists, but their followers who actually did the killing were not. Using them as examples of atheistic societies is simply disingenuous and actually kind of offensive. Those examples are one of the reasons atheists are the least trusted minority in the US. If you want an example of an actual atheistic regime that killed people, then look at Pol Pot. I won't argue with you there. There was no cult of personality or religious observation at all in his regime. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler's regimes were not truly atheist. Well we know Hitler's regimes weren't atheist. Do you think that Stalin and Mao were atheist, or that they themselves were still "religious"?
"Atheist" and "religious" are not mutually exclusive. Many buddhists are both atheist and religious. The real question, to me, is whether or not they were secular. Whether Stalin and Mao were atheist or not, they were certainly not secular. And no, I don't believe very many of their followers were actually atheist, because they believed in a godlike figurehead.
Quote: Quote: Quote: EDIT: I'll also address you're two major arguments here, in case you feel like making the next portion simpler for both of us by only taking these and a few other things: 1. Atheism is clearly defined, other religions aren't. Therefore anything that even hints at worshiping a deity isn't atheist, but if you do something in the name of religion, you're doing it in that religion. I sense that in this you're doing nothing but twisting the definition of atheism and christianity (because I believe that was the specific example) to fit you're views. A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation, therefore anyone who needlessly murders is not a christian. Simple as that. Fine, let's take that premise for a second and see how it holds up to a little bit of logic: 1. In order to be a Christian, you must obey any and all interpretations of the Bible. 2. Some people interpret the Bible to be against gay marriage (http://www.evangelsociety.org/francisco/gaychange.html) while others interpret it to be for gay marriage (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm) 3. Nobody can obey both of those interpretations at the same time. 4. Therefore, nobody is Christian. But all versions of the bible say that needless killing is a sin.
But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist.
Quote: Then isn't the holocaust not the fault of christianity?
Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion.
Quote: Or is there a version of the bible that says: Kill if you feel like it?
Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And you forgot to address my comment in that section that said: "The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition, regardless of whether the outcome is the condition or if it isn't." In other words: Atheism leaves room for a God, therefore if someone worships the state because they need a God, whether you interpret that as atheist or not it is the fault of atheism. I'm not sure I understand the argument. If I'm reading correctly, what you're saying is that if someone converts from atheism into some sort of theism, then whatever they do while they are a theist is the fault of atheism? If that's what you're saying, (I may be misinterpreting) let's do another bit of logic: 1. If you are an atheist and convert to theism, anything you do while you are a theist can be blamed on your atheism. 2. All children are born atheist. 3. The vast majority of children convert to theism. 4. All of those children do bad things and good things. 5. Therefore, all bad things and good things done by theists can be blamed on their prior atheism. 6. Therefore, the vast majority of bad things and good things done by people can be blamed on atheism. I think I'm misinterpreting you, though, so I apologize in advance. I was talking more of in a society and a direct result, like this: 1. A society is atheist 2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader 3. The society turns into a dictatorship 4. Bad things happen
But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 2. State "worship" or a cult of personality is the same thing as worshiping a deity. A cult of personality forces you to be loyal to that leader, I say again, religion is subjective. Maybe the problem here is that the word you're looking for is "optional", which isn't true. I know a lot of people who were baptized when they didn't believe in God, and there are many people in religious nations who are forced to obey religious laws they don't believe in. No, I was looking for subjective:taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment".
Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
Quote: And yes, many people are forced to take part in a religion that they don't believe in, but with Mao's China the people took part in a "religion" that they did believe in.
The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise.
Quote: Quote: Quote: I'll admit that when you pointed out that an adherent of Sharia law would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just like a Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about the nationalists was a good point, but there's a problem with that. A Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just as a Sharia law adherent would if you sang a song about Christianity. Quite simply, whenever there's lack of separation of church and state, two things are condemned by the state: 1) Other religions, 2) Allegiances with an enemy country. Number two is endorsed in just about every country (and they'd be out of their minds not to endorse it). sweatdrop I'm confused; how does this contradict my argument at all? This seems like a very clear summary of my argument. Mao's China was not secular, and you've just explained to me why. Wait, what? By lack of separation of church and state I mean the state endorse a church, not that the state is a church, although that may be true, if you are atheist spiritually, it's kinda hard to have the state be a church. Its not like you can say, "Um... nothing told me that I was to lead you."
In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:55 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: To wrap it all up, I noticed earlier you said that you accepted that atheism had problems too, and you just were mad at me for saying atheism has more problems that religion. If this is true, then why is it that every time I point out something bad that atheism has done, you come up with a weak reason why that wasn't the fault of atheism and how christianity could've done the same thing and how atheism never hurt a fly? Because the examples you've used aren't actual examples of atheistic regimes. Yes, their leaders may have been atheists, but their followers who actually did the killing were not. Using them as examples of atheistic societies is simply disingenuous and actually kind of offensive. Those examples are one of the reasons atheists are the least trusted minority in the US. If you want an example of an actual atheistic regime that killed people, then look at Pol Pot. I won't argue with you there. There was no cult of personality or religious observation at all in his regime. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler's regimes were not truly atheist. Well we know Hitler's regimes weren't atheist. Do you think that Stalin and Mao were atheist, or that they themselves were still "religious"? "Atheist" and "religious" are not mutually exclusive. Many buddhists are both atheist and religious. The real question, to me, is whether or not they were secular. Whether Stalin and Mao were atheist or not, they were certainly not secular. And no, I don't believe very many of their followers were actually atheist, because they believed in a godlike figurehead.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: EDIT: I'll also address you're two major arguments here, in case you feel like making the next portion simpler for both of us by only taking these and a few other things: 1. Atheism is clearly defined, other religions aren't. Therefore anything that even hints at worshiping a deity isn't atheist, but if you do something in the name of religion, you're doing it in that religion. I sense that in this you're doing nothing but twisting the definition of atheism and christianity (because I believe that was the specific example) to fit you're views. A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation, therefore anyone who needlessly murders is not a christian. Simple as that. Fine, let's take that premise for a second and see how it holds up to a little bit of logic: 1. In order to be a Christian, you must obey any and all interpretations of the Bible. 2. Some people interpret the Bible to be against gay marriage (http://www.evangelsociety.org/francisco/gaychange.html) while others interpret it to be for gay marriage (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm) 3. Nobody can obey both of those interpretations at the same time. 4. Therefore, nobody is Christian. But all versions of the bible say that needless killing is a sin. But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist.
And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people.
Quote: Quote: Then isn't the holocaust not the fault of christianity? Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion.
Quote: Quote: Or is there a version of the bible that says: Kill if you feel like it? Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that.
The people that think they're killing for God should also be locked up in the mental asylum, unless its someone like the antichrist who they believe they are killing, in which case they should be put in jail, not the mental asylum.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And you forgot to address my comment in that section that said: "The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition, regardless of whether the outcome is the condition or if it isn't." In other words: Atheism leaves room for a God, therefore if someone worships the state because they need a God, whether you interpret that as atheist or not it is the fault of atheism. I'm not sure I understand the argument. If I'm reading correctly, what you're saying is that if someone converts from atheism into some sort of theism, then whatever they do while they are a theist is the fault of atheism? If that's what you're saying, (I may be misinterpreting) let's do another bit of logic: 1. If you are an atheist and convert to theism, anything you do while you are a theist can be blamed on your atheism. 2. All children are born atheist. 3. The vast majority of children convert to theism. 4. All of those children do bad things and good things. 5. Therefore, all bad things and good things done by theists can be blamed on their prior atheism. 6. Therefore, the vast majority of bad things and good things done by people can be blamed on atheism. I think I'm misinterpreting you, though, so I apologize in advance. I was talking more of in a society and a direct result, like this: 1. A society is atheist 2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader 3. The society turns into a dictatorship 4. Bad things happen But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 2. State "worship" or a cult of personality is the same thing as worshiping a deity. A cult of personality forces you to be loyal to that leader, I say again, religion is subjective. Maybe the problem here is that the word you're looking for is "optional", which isn't true. I know a lot of people who were baptized when they didn't believe in God, and there are many people in religious nations who are forced to obey religious laws they don't believe in. No, I was looking for subjective:taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment". Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail
Quote: Quote: And yes, many people are forced to take part in a religion that they don't believe in, but with Mao's China the people took part in a "religion" that they did believe in. The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I'll admit that when you pointed out that an adherent of Sharia law would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just like a Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about the nationalists was a good point, but there's a problem with that. A Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just as a Sharia law adherent would if you sang a song about Christianity. Quite simply, whenever there's lack of separation of church and state, two things are condemned by the state: 1) Other religions, 2) Allegiances with an enemy country. Number two is endorsed in just about every country (and they'd be out of their minds not to endorse it). sweatdrop I'm confused; how does this contradict my argument at all? This seems like a very clear summary of my argument. Mao's China was not secular, and you've just explained to me why. Wait, what? By lack of separation of church and state I mean the state endorse a church, not that the state is a church, although that may be true, if you are atheist spiritually, it's kinda hard to have the state be a church. Its not like you can say, "Um... nothing told me that I was to lead you." In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:47 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: dl1371 Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: To wrap it all up, I noticed earlier you said that you accepted that atheism had problems too, and you just were mad at me for saying atheism has more problems that religion. If this is true, then why is it that every time I point out something bad that atheism has done, you come up with a weak reason why that wasn't the fault of atheism and how christianity could've done the same thing and how atheism never hurt a fly? Because the examples you've used aren't actual examples of atheistic regimes. Yes, their leaders may have been atheists, but their followers who actually did the killing were not. Using them as examples of atheistic societies is simply disingenuous and actually kind of offensive. Those examples are one of the reasons atheists are the least trusted minority in the US. If you want an example of an actual atheistic regime that killed people, then look at Pol Pot. I won't argue with you there. There was no cult of personality or religious observation at all in his regime. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler's regimes were not truly atheist. Well we know Hitler's regimes weren't atheist. Do you think that Stalin and Mao were atheist, or that they themselves were still "religious"? "Atheist" and "religious" are not mutually exclusive. Many buddhists are both atheist and religious. The real question, to me, is whether or not they were secular. Whether Stalin and Mao were atheist or not, they were certainly not secular. And no, I don't believe very many of their followers were actually atheist, because they believed in a godlike figurehead. OH, so you're a secularist, not one of those people who believes, "everyone should be atheist, 'cause religion sux and atheists pwn." Well then I agree with you. Yeah. I don't really care what people believe as long as they keep it out of public life. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: EDIT: I'll also address you're two major arguments here, in case you feel like making the next portion simpler for both of us by only taking these and a few other things: 1. Atheism is clearly defined, other religions aren't. Therefore anything that even hints at worshiping a deity isn't atheist, but if you do something in the name of religion, you're doing it in that religion. I sense that in this you're doing nothing but twisting the definition of atheism and christianity (because I believe that was the specific example) to fit you're views. A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation, therefore anyone who needlessly murders is not a christian. Simple as that. Fine, let's take that premise for a second and see how it holds up to a little bit of logic: 1. In order to be a Christian, you must obey any and all interpretations of the Bible. 2. Some people interpret the Bible to be against gay marriage (http://www.evangelsociety.org/francisco/gaychange.html) while others interpret it to be for gay marriage (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm) 3. Nobody can obey both of those interpretations at the same time. 4. Therefore, nobody is Christian. But all versions of the bible say that needless killing is a sin. But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist. People that interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "You can kill" should be locked in a mental asylum. Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. Quote: And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people. My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Quote: Quote: Quote: Then isn't the holocaust not the fault of christianity? Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion. What? See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. Quote: Quote: Quote: Or is there a version of the bible that says: Kill if you feel like it? Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that. Well the commandments are to be obeyed, not to be used by God, so the first bit is invalid. Plus most of that killing is supposedly justified. It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". George Carlin did a thing on this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaMiP4K8Quote: The people that think they're killing for God should also be locked up in the mental asylum, unless its someone like the antichrist who they believe they are killing, in which case they should be put in jail, not the mental asylum. I agree. But that's not the point. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And you forgot to address my comment in that section that said: "The outcome of a condition is the fault of the condition, regardless of whether the outcome is the condition or if it isn't." In other words: Atheism leaves room for a God, therefore if someone worships the state because they need a God, whether you interpret that as atheist or not it is the fault of atheism. I'm not sure I understand the argument. If I'm reading correctly, what you're saying is that if someone converts from atheism into some sort of theism, then whatever they do while they are a theist is the fault of atheism? If that's what you're saying, (I may be misinterpreting) let's do another bit of logic: 1. If you are an atheist and convert to theism, anything you do while you are a theist can be blamed on your atheism. 2. All children are born atheist. 3. The vast majority of children convert to theism. 4. All of those children do bad things and good things. 5. Therefore, all bad things and good things done by theists can be blamed on their prior atheism. 6. Therefore, the vast majority of bad things and good things done by people can be blamed on atheism. I think I'm misinterpreting you, though, so I apologize in advance. I was talking more of in a society and a direct result, like this: 1. A society is atheist 2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader 3. The society turns into a dictatorship 4. Bad things happen But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole. Ah... you mean the "A baby is born atheist" one? But that's a society that converts to a religion, but the religion isn't forced upon by atheism. If a dictator makes a society atheist, and then "religious" because the lack of a God makes them need a leader figure that they can always trust, it's a direct result of the fact that atheism has no God to tell them what to do, whose views may or may not conflict with the dictator. You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 2. State "worship" or a cult of personality is the same thing as worshiping a deity. A cult of personality forces you to be loyal to that leader, I say again, religion is subjective. Maybe the problem here is that the word you're looking for is "optional", which isn't true. I know a lot of people who were baptized when they didn't believe in God, and there are many people in religious nations who are forced to obey religious laws they don't believe in. No, I was looking for subjective:taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment". Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at. Government isn't a choice... Rousseau would like a word with you... Quote: You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity? Quote: Quote: Quote: And yes, many people are forced to take part in a religion that they don't believe in, but with Mao's China the people took part in a "religion" that they did believe in. The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise. Didn't you once say that they were all supportive of Mao? And then I replied something about them being forced to show support for Mao? Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts". Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I'll admit that when you pointed out that an adherent of Sharia law would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just like a Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about the nationalists was a good point, but there's a problem with that. A Red Guard would strike you down if you sang a song about another religion just as a Sharia law adherent would if you sang a song about Christianity. Quite simply, whenever there's lack of separation of church and state, two things are condemned by the state: 1) Other religions, 2) Allegiances with an enemy country. Number two is endorsed in just about every country (and they'd be out of their minds not to endorse it). sweatdrop I'm confused; how does this contradict my argument at all? This seems like a very clear summary of my argument. Mao's China was not secular, and you've just explained to me why. Wait, what? By lack of separation of church and state I mean the state endorse a church, not that the state is a church, although that may be true, if you are atheist spiritually, it's kinda hard to have the state be a church. Its not like you can say, "Um... nothing told me that I was to lead you." In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. But is the head of the state chosen by their God to lead? Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar. Quote: And even if that is the case, if a nation is spiritually atheist than you can't say the leader was chosen by God. Unless you're in a nation of retards. But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:43 pm
|
|
|
|
AAAAA... this is becoming too long again...Lethkhar Quote: dl1371 Lethkhar Quote: Well we know Hitler's regimes weren't atheist. Do you think that Stalin and Mao were atheist, or that they themselves were still "religious"? "Atheist" and "religious" are not mutually exclusive. Many buddhists are both atheist and religious. The real question, to me, is whether or not they were secular. Whether Stalin and Mao were atheist or not, they were certainly not secular. And no, I don't believe very many of their followers were actually atheist, because they believed in a godlike figurehead. OH, so you're a secularist, not one of those people who believes, "everyone should be atheist, 'cause religion sux and atheists pwn." Well then I agree with you. Yeah. I don't really care what people believe as long as they keep it out of public life. Well its gonna get into public life no matter what. Its just restricting it so you don't have people going around saying "WE SHOULD TEACH CREATIONISM AS FACTS IN SCHOOLS!" Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But all versions of the bible say that needless killing is a sin. But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist. People that interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "You can kill" should be locked in a mental asylum. Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. I said needless killing, if you kill an enemy of God, you should be put in jail, but you're still a true christian. Needless killing is killing of innocents. Quote: Quote: And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people. My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Thou shalt not steal needlessly Thou shalt not kill needlessly There is a God, who is all benevolent You get judged in the afterlife. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Then isn't the holocaust not the fault of christianity? Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion. What? See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. I never said all interpretations But some traits are shared, ones that I listed above. All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide. Trying to say that nobodies christian is a pretty weak argument, no offense. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Or is there a version of the bible that says: Kill if you feel like it? Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that. Well the commandments are to be obeyed, not to be used by God, so the first bit is invalid. Plus most of that killing is supposedly justified. It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given. If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago.
Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..."
I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel"
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I was talking more of in a society and a direct result, like this: 1. A society is atheist 2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader 3. The society turns into a dictatorship 4. Bad things happen But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole. Ah... you mean the "A baby is born atheist" one? But that's a society that converts to a religion, but the religion isn't forced upon by atheism. If a dictator makes a society atheist, and then "religious" because the lack of a God makes them need a leader figure that they can always trust, it's a direct result of the fact that atheism has no God to tell them what to do, whose views may or may not conflict with the dictator. You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, I was looking for subjective:taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment". Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at. Government isn't a choice... Rousseau would like a word with you...
Moving on...
Quote: Quote: You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And yes, many people are forced to take part in a religion that they don't believe in, but with Mao's China the people took part in a "religion" that they did believe in. The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise. Didn't you once say that they were all supportive of Mao? And then I replied something about them being forced to show support for Mao? Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts".
And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Wait, what? By lack of separation of church and state I mean the state endorse a church, not that the state is a church, although that may be true, if you are atheist spiritually, it's kinda hard to have the state be a church. Its not like you can say, "Um... nothing told me that I was to lead you." In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. But is the head of the state chosen by their God to lead? Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar.
Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not?
Quote: And even if that is the case, if a nation is spiritually atheist than you can't say the leader was chosen by God. Unless you're in a nation of retards.
But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself.Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:10 am
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But all versions of the bible say that needless killing is a sin. But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist. People that interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "You can kill" should be locked in a mental asylum. Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. I said needless killing, if you kill an enemy of God, you should be put in jail, but you're still a true christian. Needless killing is killing of innocents.
So really what you really mean is that a true Christian is a Christian who adheres to YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people. My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Thou shalt not steal needlessly
Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary.
Quote: Thou shalt not kill needlessly
Define "needlessly", and not all Christians believe that regardless. There are quite a few serial killers who would disagree with that.
Quote: There is a God, who is all benevolent
I will grant you that all Christians I know of are theists. But not all Christians believe he is benevolent. In fact, were I to judge what most Christians believe about God, I'd say most of them believe in a malevolent God.
Quote: You get judged in the afterlife.
Mormons don't believe that.
So...What we're left with is that Christians are people who believe there is a God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Then isn't the holocaust not the fault of christianity? Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion. What? See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. I never said all interpretations
dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation
Did I, ah, misinterpret that? xd
Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide.
The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church.
Quote: Trying to say that nobodies christian is a pretty weak argument, no offense.
Actually, it's a pretty strong argument against your statement that Christians are people who obey the bible regardless of the interpretation. It's an argument you haven't actually found any fault in.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Or is there a version of the bible that says: Kill if you feel like it? Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that. Well the commandments are to be obeyed, not to be used by God, so the first bit is invalid. Plus most of that killing is supposedly justified. It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given.
No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about.
Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago.
Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian.
Stopped in the beginning
Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..."
I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel"
I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time.
George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I was talking more of in a society and a direct result, like this: 1. A society is atheist 2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader 3. The society turns into a dictatorship 4. Bad things happen But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole. Ah... you mean the "A baby is born atheist" one? But that's a society that converts to a religion, but the religion isn't forced upon by atheism. If a dictator makes a society atheist, and then "religious" because the lack of a God makes them need a leader figure that they can always trust, it's a direct result of the fact that atheism has no God to tell them what to do, whose views may or may not conflict with the dictator. You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want. Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion
Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, I was looking for subjective:taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment". Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at. Government isn't a choice... Rousseau would like a word with you... Great for him Moving on...
I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract.
Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically.
But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in.
Quote: Quote: Quote: You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity? But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife"
What do you think lawyers are for?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And yes, many people are forced to take part in a religion that they don't believe in, but with Mao's China the people took part in a "religion" that they did believe in. The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise. Didn't you once say that they were all supportive of Mao? And then I replied something about them being forced to show support for Mao? Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts". And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate?
My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily.
Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion.
No one has ever changed sides, to my knowledge. Can you show me some quotes or something?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Wait, what? By lack of separation of church and state I mean the state endorse a church, not that the state is a church, although that may be true, if you are atheist spiritually, it's kinda hard to have the state be a church. Its not like you can say, "Um... nothing told me that I was to lead you." In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. But is the head of the state chosen by their God to lead? Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar. But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not?
Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings)
Quote: Quote: And even if that is the case, if a nation is spiritually atheist than you can't say the leader was chosen by God. Unless you're in a nation of retards. But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself.
Well, that's pretty much what he said.
The afterlife is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:13 am
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Quote: Quote: But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist. People that interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "You can kill" should be locked in a mental asylum. Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. I said needless killing, if you kill an enemy of God, you should be put in jail, but you're still a true christian. Needless killing is killing of innocents.
So really what you really mean is that a true Christian is a Christian who adheres to YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people. My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Thou shalt not steal needlessly
Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary.
Quote: Thou shalt not kill needlessly
Define "needlessly", and not all Christians believe that regardless. There are quite a few serial killers who would disagree with that.
Quote: There is a God, who is all benevolent
I will grant you that all Christians I know of are theists. But not all Christians believe he is benevolent. In fact, were I to judge what most Christians believe about God, I'd say most of them believe in a malevolent God.
Quote: You get judged in the afterlife.
Mormons don't believe that.
So...What we're left with is that Christians are people who believe there is a God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion. What? See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. I never said all interpretations
dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretation
Did I, ah, misinterpret that? xd
Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide.
The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church.
Quote: Trying to say that nobodies christian is a pretty weak argument, no offense.
Actually, it's a pretty strong argument against your statement that Christians are people who obey the bible regardless of the interpretation. It's an argument you haven't actually found any fault in.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that. Well the commandments are to be obeyed, not to be used by God, so the first bit is invalid. Plus most of that killing is supposedly justified. It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given.
No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about.
Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago.
Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian.
Stopped in the beginning
Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..."
I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel"
I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time.
George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole. Ah... you mean the "A baby is born atheist" one? But that's a society that converts to a religion, but the religion isn't forced upon by atheism. If a dictator makes a society atheist, and then "religious" because the lack of a God makes them need a leader figure that they can always trust, it's a direct result of the fact that atheism has no God to tell them what to do, whose views may or may not conflict with the dictator. You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want. Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion
Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at. Government isn't a choice... Rousseau would like a word with you... Great for him Moving on...
I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract.
Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically.
But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in.
Quote: Quote: Quote: You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity? But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife"
What do you think lawyers are for?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise. Didn't you once say that they were all supportive of Mao? And then I replied something about them being forced to show support for Mao? Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts". And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate?
My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily.
Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion.
No one has ever changed sides, to my knowledge. Can you show me some quotes or something?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. But is the head of the state chosen by their God to lead? Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar. But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not?
Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings)
Quote: Quote: Quote: And even if that is the case, if a nation is spiritually atheist than you can't say the leader was chosen by God. Unless you're in a nation of retards. But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself. Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all"
Well, that's pretty much what he said.
The afterlife is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:28 am
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But all versions of the bible say that needless killing is a sin. But not all people interpret it that way. And if, in order to be considered Christian, you have to follow every interpretation of the Bible, then nobody is Christian and Christianity doesn't exist. People that interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "You can kill" should be locked in a mental asylum. Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. I said needless killing, if you kill an enemy of God, you should be put in jail, but you're still a true christian. Needless killing is killing of innocents. So really what you really mean is that a true Christian is a Christian who adheres to YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people. My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Thou shalt not steal needlessly Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary.
Quote: Quote: Thou shalt not kill needlessly Define "needlessly", and not all Christians believe that regardless. There are quite a few serial killers who would disagree with that.
Quote: Quote: There is a God, who is all benevolent I will grant you that all Christians I know of are theists. But not all Christians believe he is benevolent. In fact, were I to judge what most Christians believe about God, I'd say most of them believe in a malevolent God.
Quote: Quote: You get judged in the afterlife. Mormons don't believe that.
Quote: So...What we're left with is that Christians are people who believe there is a God.
I don't get why you constantly try to prove that there is no definition of christianity, if you think about it long and hard, that's a really bad argument.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Then isn't the holocaust not the fault of christianity? Of course the Holocaust wouldn't be the fault of Christianity if Christianity doesn't exist. I think the idea that nobody is Christian is ludicrous, but you seem to be OK with that conclusion. What? See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. I never said all interpretations dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretationDid I, ah, mis interpret that? xd
EDIT: I just realized how stupid that comment was. All =/= whatever.
Example, there are 5 red balls and 3 green ones. You can either have all of the balls or whatever ball you like.
I don't see why I have to talk to you like a child though...
Quote: Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide. The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church.
Quote: Quote: Trying to say that nobodies christian is a pretty weak argument, no offense. Actually, it's a pretty strong argument against your statement that Christians are people who obey the bible regardless of the interpretation. It's an argument you haven't actually found any fault in.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Or is there a version of the bible that says: Kill if you feel like it? Well, the Christian God seems to do quite a bit of that. And there are numerous examples of Christian individuals who adhered to an interpretation like that. A lot of Christian serial killers even believe the Christian God wants them to kill people. So yes, it apparently has been interpreted that way and according to your premise in order to be a Christian you must adhere to Sampson Kanderayi's interpretation of the Bible. I disagree with that. Well the commandments are to be obeyed, not to be used by God, so the first bit is invalid. Plus most of that killing is supposedly justified. It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given. No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about.
Its really not that hard, why do you waste my time by typing up statements that can be disproved by re-reading what I just said?
Quote: Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago. Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian.
Quote: Stopped in the beginning Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..." I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel"
I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time.
George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God.Quote: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity
I'm sorry, you have failed. Try again?
And tell me then, how did the universe appear?
Oh wait, you don't know
Pretty great religion we've got there
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I was talking more of in a society and a direct result, like this: 1. A society is atheist 2. The society feels the need for a force to guide them so they look towards a leader 3. The society turns into a dictatorship 4. Bad things happen But that doesn't change the fact that the dictatorship doing the bad things is a state of religion. You can't blame atheism for all the bad things that that replacement of God is doing, just as you can't give credit to atheism for all the good it's doing, either. See my previous argument, which I think still applies to society as a whole. Ah... you mean the "A baby is born atheist" one? But that's a society that converts to a religion, but the religion isn't forced upon by atheism. If a dictator makes a society atheist, and then "religious" because the lack of a God makes them need a leader figure that they can always trust, it's a direct result of the fact that atheism has no God to tell them what to do, whose views may or may not conflict with the dictator. You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want. Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, I was looking for subjective:taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment". Government is subjective, too. I'm not really sure what you're driving at. Government isn't a choice... Rousseau would like a word with you... Great for him Moving on... I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract. Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically.
Quote: But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity? But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife" What do you think lawyers are for?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And yes, many people are forced to take part in a religion that they don't believe in, but with Mao's China the people took part in a "religion" that they did believe in. The vast majority of Chinese people in Maoist China took part in the religion voluntarily. The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward should be proof enough of that. You have no evidence that shows otherwise. Didn't you once say that they were all supportive of Mao? And then I replied something about them being forced to show support for Mao? Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts". And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate? My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily. Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion.
Quote: No one has ever changed sides, to my knowledge. Can you show me some quotes or something?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Wait, what? By lack of separation of church and state I mean the state endorse a church, not that the state is a church, although that may be true, if you are atheist spiritually, it's kinda hard to have the state be a church. Its not like you can say, "Um... nothing told me that I was to lead you." In the case of Iran, you actually have Sharia courts in the Iranian justice system. The head of state of Iran can also call fatwas within the Islamic faith. The state doesn't just "endorse" the religion; it is the religion. But is the head of the state chosen by their God to lead? Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar. But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not? Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings)
Quote: Quote: Quote: And even if that is the case, if a nation is spiritually atheist than you can't say the leader was chosen by God. Unless you're in a nation of retards. But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself. Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all"
Well, that's pretty much what he said.Yeah, but he lead the revolution too, so he did deserve it. What I'm saying is that if you have an atheist nation that you plan to become a dictator with a cult of personality in, you can't say that, because that'll be before your cult takes place. So all the people will think you're a retard.
Quote: The afterlife is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:52 am
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Quote: Quote: People that interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "You can kill" should be locked in a mental asylum. Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. I said needless killing, if you kill an enemy of God, you should be put in jail, but you're still a true christian. Needless killing is killing of innocents. So really what you really mean is that a true Christian is a Christian who adheres to YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Sure, there are different interpretations of needless killing, but if you kill a someone who adheres to your religion, and they're innocent then I'm pretty sure its not needed.
Well, that's one interpretation of the word "needless". confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And I didn't say you had to follow every interpretation, its just that all interpretations share some characteristics, such as not killing people. My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Thou shalt not steal needlessly Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary. How do you know? If christianity wanted to survive then they'd want to build up a rich empire. What's the easiest way to build up a rich empire?
I know it's not necessary because it's sitting on display in a museum right now. It's not like they've sold it.
Quote: Quote: Quote: You get judged in the afterlife. Mormons don't believe that. Mormons aren't really christians. They believe in a different prophet than Jesus as the final profit.
Now we're getting somewhere...So in order to be Christian, you must believe in a god and that Jesus was the final prophet. An interesting definition that excludes quite a number of people who describe themselves as Christian...Also, a much more specific definition than the definition of an atheist. Point made.
Quote: Quote: So...What we're left with is that Christians are people who believe there is a God. And jesus. I don't get why you constantly try to prove that there is no definition of christianity, if you think about it long and hard, that's a really bad argument.
I'm doing it to prove the difference between Christianity (A religion) and atheism. (A religious stance) You actually proved my point in the previous quote.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. I never said all interpretations dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretationDid I, ah, mis interpret that? xd Most likely. EDIT: I just realized how stupid that comment was. All =/= whatever. Example, there are 5 red balls and 3 green ones. You can either have all of the balls or whatever ball you like.
Oh, so this entire line of conversation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant "whatever interpretation" to mean "all interpretations". If you look at the context of the conversation, you can see how I'd make such a mistake. You meant it to mean "a Christian is a person who obeys whatever their own interpretation of the Bible.", while I took it to mean "A Christian is a person who obeys whatever person's interpretation of the Bible.". That makes more sense. It was a simple mistake, and I apologize.
If that's the case, however, then I'm left wondering how Mormons aren't Christians. After all, they follow an interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: I don't see why I have to talk to you like a child though...
Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I apologized; please try to be civil.
Quote: Quote: Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide. The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church. In the name of God.
How does being in the name of God prevent if from being called a genocide?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well the commandments are to be obeyed, not to be used by God, so the first bit is invalid. Plus most of that killing is supposedly justified. It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given. No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about. And they probably believe needless killing is killing at all.
There is something wrong with that sentence. I can't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.
Quote: Quote: Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago. Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian. Considering I've never heard of Jainism, nor have most people I've asked since I read that, I'd say it has. Sure there are probably still Jainists around, but not a lot of them, and to be one of the dominant religions in the world, you have to kill to get there.
You didn't say "wouldn't dominate the world", you said "would've died off".
Also, keep in mind that Jainism is far older than Christianity. Christianity will probably be no more or less obscure a few millienia from now, if history is any indication.
Quote: Quote: Stopped in the beginning Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..." I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel" I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time. George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God. Quote: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity
I'm sorry, you have failed. Try again?
confused What did I just fail at?
Quote: And tell me then, how did the universe appear?
Who says it did?
Quote: Oh wait, you don't know Pretty great religion we've got there
Better than making s**t up, if you ask me.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Ah... you mean the "A baby is born atheist" one? But that's a society that converts to a religion, but the religion isn't forced upon by atheism. If a dictator makes a society atheist, and then "religious" because the lack of a God makes them need a leader figure that they can always trust, it's a direct result of the fact that atheism has no God to tell them what to do, whose views may or may not conflict with the dictator. You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want. Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused Maybe because babies can look up to their parents and chinese people can't?
Do Chinese people not have parents? sweatdrop
Quote: Also because of the fact that babies probably aren't as smart as the average chinese person. The only thing most babies care about is "FOOD!" "DRINK" "SLEEP". Until they're old enough to look up to their parents, who then teach them that there's a God.
So wait...Your argument is that Chinese people need to depend on a God because they're smarter and less dependent than a baby.
This is, yet again, pointless speculation. You have no idea that that was the reason why people worshiped Mao, and you have no evidence to back up the claim that atheism makes one more vulnerable to conversion than theism.
I, however, have a study that shows that those unaffiliated with a religious institution are actually less likely to convert than Catholics or Protestants:
http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx
A limited study, sure, and probably not very applicable to eastern beliefs in China. But the fact remains that you have no evidence, that that was a pretty interesting study.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Government isn't a choice... Rousseau would like a word with you... Great for him Moving on... I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract. Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. Right, because remember, international borders are the easiest thing to move between. Just look at how many people fled the Soviet Union with no problem in the Cold War. Quote: But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in. I'm not interested in things that I can disprove.
Your example had nothing to do with the Social Contract, and it certainly didn't "disprove" almost 250 years of political science.
I was just going to cut this out completely, since it's really getting us nowhere, but in case you're interested in further reading/discussion:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rousseau+social+contract
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You can't say "I'm not gonna do this shizz even though they tell me to", then you'll be put in jail Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity? But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife" What do you think lawyers are for? Sure, but even lawyers can't tell the court that killing is OK.
Sure they can. You can get off charge-free if it's in self defense. Hell, in Texas you'll get off as long as you prove they were in front of your yard. And that only exists because some lawyer and judge both twisted the law to say that's what it said.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Didn't you once say that they were all supportive of Mao? And then I replied something about them being forced to show support for Mao? Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts". And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate? My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily. Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion. Ok, but then when I show that many people in anti-secularist countries can be practicing another religion secretly and that religion is forced in countries like that
You haven't shown that yet.
Quote: you need to show that people were forced to take part in Mao's Cult of Personality.
Why on earth would I need to show that? That's not what I'm arguing. That's what you're arguing; You need to show that. I've already shown that his cult of personality existed, and many people seemed to believe in it. Now you need to show that a lot of those people were just being forced.
You're right; this debate is bizarre. You seem to have switched sides or something.
Quote: Quote: No one has ever changed sides, to my knowledge. Can you show me some quotes or something? You mean in Mao's cult? Read "Red Scarf Girl" she changed sides.
I was talking about the two of us in debate. Now you're asking me to show proof that many people were forced to be part of Mao's cult, when that's what I've been arguing against the whole time.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But is the head of the state chosen by their God to lead? Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar. But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not? Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings) That's pretty much how politics does work. You do something, or many things that are great, and you get into a higher office.
Yup. Government can be the same as religion.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And even if that is the case, if a nation is spiritually atheist than you can't say the leader was chosen by God. Unless you're in a nation of retards. But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself. Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all" Well, that's pretty much what he said. Yeah, but he lead the revolution too, so he did deserve it. What I'm saying is that if you have an atheist nation that you plan to become a dictator with a cult of personality in, you can't say that, because that'll be before your cult takes place. So all the people will think you're a retard.
Well, yeah, of course they need a reason to respect you. Kind of like how Jesus had to have stories written about him feeding and healing people before being called the son of God,
Quote: Quote: The afterlife is irrelevant. How so?
Not all religions have nor need an afterlife. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:36 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Quote: Then the vast majority of Christians should be locked in a mental asylum. If the overwhelming majority of Jews, Muslims, and Christians actually interpreted "thou shalt not kill" as you not being allowed to kill period, the only people going to war would be the Hindus or something. I said needless killing, if you kill an enemy of God, you should be put in jail, but you're still a true christian. Needless killing is killing of innocents. So really what you really mean is that a true Christian is a Christian who adheres to YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Sure, there are different interpretations of needless killing, but if you kill a someone who adheres to your religion, and they're innocent then I'm pretty sure its not needed. Well, that's one interpretation of the word "needless". confused
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: My point is that that's not true. I doubt there's a single characteristic you could name that's shared by all interpretations of the Bible. Thou shalt not steal needlessly Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary. How do you know? If christianity wanted to survive then they'd want to build up a rich empire. What's the easiest way to build up a rich empire? I know it's not necessary because it's sitting on display in a museum right now. It's not like they've sold it.
But its also kinda about the legacy...
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You get judged in the afterlife. Mormons don't believe that. Mormons aren't really christians. They believe in a different prophet than Jesus as the final profit. Now we're getting somewhere...So in order to be Christian, you must believe in a god and that Jesus was the final prophet. An interesting definition that excludes quite a number of people who describe themselves as Christian...Also, a much more specific definition than the definition of an atheist. Point made.
Quote: Quote: Quote: So...What we're left with is that Christians are people who believe there is a God. And jesus. I don't get why you constantly try to prove that there is no definition of christianity, if you think about it long and hard, that's a really bad argument. I'm doing it to prove the difference between Christianity (A religion) and atheism. (A religious stance) You actually proved my point in the previous quote.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: See my previous argument. If, in order to be Christian, you must adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, and if nobody can adhere to all interpretations of the Bible, then nobody is Christian. I never said all interpretations dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretationDid I, ah, mis interpret that? xd Most likely. EDIT: I just realized how stupid that comment was. All =/= whatever. Example, there are 5 red balls and 3 green ones. You can either have all of the balls or whatever ball you like. Oh, so this entire line of conversation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant "whatever interpretation" to mean "all interpretations". If you look at the context of the conversation, you can see how I'd make such a mistake. You meant it to mean "a Christian is a person who obeys whatever their own interpretation of the Bible.", while I took it to mean "A Christian is a person who obeys whatever person's interpretation of the Bible.". That makes more sense. It was a simple mistake, and I apologize. If that's the case, however, then I'm left wondering how Mormons aren't Christians. After all, they follow an interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide. The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church. In the name of God. How does being in the name of God prevent if from being called a genocide?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified". Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given. No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about. And they probably believe needless killing is killing at all. There is something wrong with that sentence. I can't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago. Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian. Considering I've never heard of Jainism, nor have most people I've asked since I read that, I'd say it has. Sure there are probably still Jainists around, but not a lot of them, and to be one of the dominant religions in the world, you have to kill to get there. You didn't say "wouldn't dominate the world", you said "would've died off".
Quote: Also, keep in mind that Jainism is far older than Christianity. Christianity will probably be no more or less obscure a few millienia from now, if history is any indication.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Stopped in the beginning Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..." I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel" I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time. George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God. Quote: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity I'm sorry, you have failed. Try again?
confused What did I just fail at?You What you described, again, isn't "atheism".
Quote: Quote: And tell me then, how did the universe appear? Who says it did?
Some logic to prove time must have had a beginning:
1. Assume the universe is a steady state universe
2. This means that 999 billion years ago, there was still a 999 billion years ago
3. And at that point there was still a 999 billion years ago.
4. On and on and on forever.
5. This means that from the point we end at after going on and on forever is infinity years away from now
6. Which means we would never reach the moment in time that we're at now.
7. Which means I wouldn't be able to prove that there wasn't a steady state universe right here.
And alternative argument against a steady state universe is the with dark energy everything would be so far apart that we couldn't see it.
/steady state
Quote: Quote: Oh wait, you don't know Pretty great religion we've got there Better than making s**t up, if you ask me.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You could say the same thing about the babies. You could say that they "needed" a god, so they were given a religion to tell them what to do, which just so happens to go along with what their parents want. Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused Maybe because babies can look up to their parents and chinese people can't? Do Chinese people not have parents? sweatdrop
Quote: Quote: Also because of the fact that babies probably aren't as smart as the average chinese person. The only thing most babies care about is "FOOD!" "DRINK" "SLEEP". Until they're old enough to look up to their parents, who then teach them that there's a God. So wait...Your argument is that Chinese people need to depend on a God because they're smarter and less dependent than a baby.
Quote: This is, yet again, pointless speculation. You have no idea that that was the reason why people worshiped Mao, and you have no evidence to back up the claim that atheism makes one more vulnerable to conversion than theism.
Quote: I, however, have a study that shows that those unaffiliated with a religious institution are actually less likely to convert than Catholics or Protestants: http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx
The american society isn't atheist. If a society is atheist it does need someone to look up to that's just as high as God.
Quote: A limited study, sure, and probably not very applicable to eastern beliefs in China. But the fact remains that you have no evidence, that that was a pretty interesting study.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Rousseau would like a word with you... Great for him Moving on... I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract. Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. Right, because remember, international borders are the easiest thing to move between. Just look at how many people fled the Soviet Union with no problem in the Cold War. Quote: But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in. I'm not interested in things that I can disprove. Your example had nothing to do with the Social Contract, and it certainly didn't "disprove" almost 250 years of political science. You Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically.
Maybe you could try wording it differently. You can't really chose to be under a different system of government.
I know how to google. I don't see why you have to be so ad hom with your links...
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh...Kind of like how I can't do whatever I want or I'll be burned in Hell for eternity? But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife" What do you think lawyers are for? Sure, but even lawyers can't tell the court that killing is OK. Sure they can. You can get off charge-free if it's in self defense. Hell, in Texas you'll get off as long as you prove they were in front of your yard. And that only exists because some lawyer and judge both twisted the law to say that's what it said.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Yup, and you have yet to provide any evidence that "many people" were forced to worship Mao, (Which wouldn't change the fact that it's still religion, which we haven't even gotten to yet) while I have shown at least one Chinese source calling him "The Sun in all our hearts". And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate? My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily. Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion. Ok, but then when I show that many people in anti-secularist countries can be practicing another religion secretly and that religion is forced in countries like that You haven't shown that yet.
Quote: Quote: you need to show that people were forced to take part in Mao's Cult of Personality. Why on earth would I need to show that? That's not what I'm arguing. That's what you're arguing; You need to show that. I've already shown that his cult of personality existed, and many people seemed to believe in it. Now you need to show that a lot of those people were just being forced. You're right; this debate is bizarre. You seem to have switched sides or something.
1. You think Mao's cult of personality was a religion, I don't
2. I point out that religion is subjective
3. You point out that in anti-secularist countries, they force people to be part of a religion. Therefore religion isn't subjective
4. I point out that people can still believe whatever they want, and for Mao's cult of personality to be a religion people must still twist what they think Mao said into their own definition. This means that the people who do that must be forced to show publicly that they think Mao believes X when they privately think he believe Y.
5. You earlier said that everyone truly believed Mao was God.
6. Simple solution, Mao's cult of personality wasn't a religion and didn't follow characteristics that a religion would.
Quote: Quote: Quote: No one has ever changed sides, to my knowledge. Can you show me some quotes or something? You mean in Mao's cult? Read "Red Scarf Girl" she changed sides. I was talking about the two of us in debate. Now you're asking me to show proof that many people were forced to be part of Mao's cult, when that's what I've been arguing against the whole time.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well, it's assumed he's doing the will of God. He's an Islamic scholar. But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not? Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings) That's pretty much how politics does work. You do something, or many things that are great, and you get into a higher office. Yup. Government can be the same as religion.
"No"
"Off to jail with you"
Unless I don't get what you're saying
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But the nation isn't spiritually atheist. Mao's China's God was Mao himself. Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all" Well, that's pretty much what he said. Yeah, but he lead the revolution too, so he did deserve it. What I'm saying is that if you have an atheist nation that you plan to become a dictator with a cult of personality in, you can't say that, because that'll be before your cult takes place. So all the people will think you're a retard. Well, yeah, of course they need a reason to respect you. Kind of like how Jesus had to have stories written about him feeding and healing people before being called the son of God,
Quote: Quote: Quote: The afterlife is irrelevant. How so? Not all unsuccessful religions have nor need an afterlife.
If Mao's China was really a religion then they would need some sort of eternal reward to get that many followers. Unless of course...
Oh yes, how did I forget:
inb4 you claim that all the times in my post where I say "logic" is speculation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:55 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Thou shalt not steal needlessly Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary. How do you know? If christianity wanted to survive then they'd want to build up a rich empire. What's the easiest way to build up a rich empire? I know it's not necessary because it's sitting on display in a museum right now. It's not like they've sold it. If they ever do they'll be rich But its also kinda about the legacy...
They're already rich. It's not necessary. Even the Pope would agree with me on that.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You get judged in the afterlife. Mormons don't believe that. Mormons aren't really christians. They believe in a different prophet than Jesus as the final profit. Now we're getting somewhere...So in order to be Christian, you must believe in a god and that Jesus was the final prophet. An interesting definition that excludes quite a number of people who describe themselves as Christian...Also, a much more specific definition than the definition of an atheist. Point made. I assume that was sarcasm... but in case it wasn't I'll go along with it, less typing for me.
I was saying MY point was made, not yours. It wasn't sarcasm; you have shown yourself that atheism is a less specific term than Christianity.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I never said all interpretations dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretationDid I, ah, mis interpret that? xd Most likely. EDIT: I just realized how stupid that comment was. All =/= whatever. Example, there are 5 red balls and 3 green ones. You can either have all of the balls or whatever ball you like. Oh, so this entire line of conversation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant "whatever interpretation" to mean "all interpretations". If you look at the context of the conversation, you can see how I'd make such a mistake. You meant it to mean "a Christian is a person who obeys whatever their own interpretation of the Bible.", while I took it to mean "A Christian is a person who obeys whatever person's interpretation of the Bible.". That makes more sense. It was a simple mistake, and I apologize. If that's the case, however, then I'm left wondering how Mormons aren't Christians. After all, they follow an interpretation of the Bible. Does the bible say that whatshisname-the-mormon-prophet was a prophet? I thought not.
It doesn't say he wasn't. And even if it did, as I've already shown, there are plenty of sects of Christianity that directly contradict what the Bible supposedly says. It doesn't seem to matter too much what the Bible says as long as you interpret it someway else.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide. The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church. In the name of God. How does being in the name of God prevent if from being called a genocide? Its not needless killing, its needed killing, according to their views.
So as long as you don't call it genocide, it's not genocide?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given. No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about. And they probably believe needless killing is killing at all. There is something wrong with that sentence. I can't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry. Those christians believe any killing is needless killing.
Exactly. That's why the "justified" isn't a given; because it isn't given at all.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago. Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian. Considering I've never heard of Jainism, nor have most people I've asked since I read that, I'd say it has. Sure there are probably still Jainists around, but not a lot of them, and to be one of the dominant religions in the world, you have to kill to get there. You didn't say "wouldn't dominate the world", you said "would've died off". Well considering I don't know any Jainists, I would say it practically has died off. If there are so few practitioners of a religion that there's a big chance that a given individual doesn't know any, it probably has died off.
That's because you live (I assume) in the US. Ask anyone in India and they would be able to tell you what Jainism is.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Stopped in the beginning Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..." I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel" I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time. George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God. Quote: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity I'm sorry, you have failed. Try again? What did I just fail at? You What you described, again, isn't "atheism". Then what is it?
I It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And tell me then, how did the universe appear? Who says it did? You believe in a steady state universe... Some logic to prove time must have had a beginning: 1. Assume the universe is a steady state universe 2. This means that 999 billion years ago, there was still a 999 billion years ago 3. And at that point there was still a 999 billion years ago. 4. On and on and on forever. 5. This means that from the point we end at after going on and on forever is infinity years away from now 6. Which means we would never reach the moment in time that we're at now. 7. Which means I wouldn't be able to prove that there wasn't a steady state universe right here. And alternative argument against a steady state universe is the with dark energy everything would be so far apart that we couldn't see it. /steady state
I do not believe in a steady state universe. I actually believe in the Big Bang; I just don't believe the universe didn't exist before it.
Again, though, this has nothing to do with my atheism.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh wait, you don't know Pretty great religion we've got there Better than making s**t up, if you ask me. If you can feel a spiritual connection with God its not really making it up...
If he doesn't exist, then he's made up.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused Maybe because babies can look up to their parents and chinese people can't? Do Chinese people not have parents? sweatdrop No, but the communist party made the society atheist. They weren't really able to look up to their parents then, so who do they look up to? I'll give you 3 guesses.
Atheism doesn't mean you can't look up to your parents.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Also because of the fact that babies probably aren't as smart as the average chinese person. The only thing most babies care about is "FOOD!" "DRINK" "SLEEP". Until they're old enough to look up to their parents, who then teach them that there's a God. So wait...Your argument is that Chinese people need to depend on a God because they're smarter and less dependent than a baby. Pretty much
If you're less dependent than a baby, you'd think you wouldn't need to depend on things like God as much as a baby. That's kind of what "less dependent" means.
Quote: Quote: This is, yet again, pointless speculation. You have no idea that that was the reason why people worshiped Mao, and you have no evidence to back up the claim that atheism makes one more vulnerable to conversion than theism. Besides logic, you're right, I don't have any evidence.
What logic?
Quote: Quote: I, however, have a study that shows that those unaffiliated with a religious institution are actually less likely to convert than Catholics or Protestants: http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx Well no s**t. The american society isn't atheist. If a society is atheist it does need someone to look up to that's just as high as God.
How do you know that? Even if we put aside the fact that that was a statement completely free of evidence or reasoning, it doesn't even make any sense. You realize that societies are made up of individual people, right? If being atheist doesn't make you more prone to conversion as an individual, how does it make you more prone to conversion as a society?
Quote: Quote: A limited study, sure, and probably not very applicable to eastern beliefs in China. But the fact remains that you have no evidence, that that was a pretty interesting study. I have logic. Do you have any logic that supports your study?
1. Atheists are less prone to conversion than many theists.
2. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are atheist.
3. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are less prone to conversion than many theists.
A simple definition of "atheist society", mind you, but certainly more logical than your seemingly random justifications.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Great for him Moving on... I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract. Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. Right, because remember, international borders are the easiest thing to move between. Just look at how many people fled the Soviet Union with no problem in the Cold War. Quote: But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in. I'm not interested in things that I can disprove. Your example had nothing to do with the Social Contract, and it certainly didn't "disprove" almost 250 years of political science. You Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. That doesn't make any sense unless you think of it the way I do, sorry, but I can't understand it. Maybe you could try wording it differently. You can't really chose to be under a different system of government.
It'd probably going to be pointless. Rousseau took a whole book to explain it, and you won't even wait until you know what it is before you start "disproving" it.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife" What do you think lawyers are for? Sure, but even lawyers can't tell the court that killing is OK. Sure they can. You can get off charge-free if it's in self defense. Hell, in Texas you'll get off as long as you prove they were in front of your yard. And that only exists because some lawyer and judge both twisted the law to say that's what it said. So... a lawyer can say that the charges were OK no matter what they're charging? So if I went out and murdered a random person for no reason I would be fine?
If you had a good enough lawyer.
I just realized something: Are you talking about religion being subjective in that the "afterlife" punishment is up to opinion? Because that's not what I've been arguing about, and I just realized that that's what you might mean.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate? My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily. Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion. Ok, but then when I show that many people in anti-secularist countries can be practicing another religion secretly and that religion is forced in countries like that You haven't shown that yet. I just said it. Respond Quote: Quote: you need to show that people were forced to take part in Mao's Cult of Personality. Why on earth would I need to show that? That's not what I'm arguing. That's what you're arguing; You need to show that. I've already shown that his cult of personality existed, and many people seemed to believe in it. Now you need to show that a lot of those people were just being forced. You're right; this debate is bizarre. You seem to have switched sides or something. Some logic: 1. You think Mao's cult of personality was a religion, I don't 2. I point out that religion is subjective 3. You point out that in anti-secularist countries, they force people to be part of a religion. Therefore religion isn't subjective
I've never said that religion isn't subjective. I said that government was also subjective.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not? Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings) That's pretty much how politics does work. You do something, or many things that are great, and you get into a higher office. Yup. Government can be the same as religion. That's reality, not government... if government was the same as religion then government would be a lot more straightforward. "Do you trust the government" "No" "Off to jail with you" Unless I don't get what you're saying
Yeah, I think you're talking about "afterlife" punishment. In which case the difference isn't between "government" and "religion", both of which are real systems, but the difference between "real" and "imaginary".
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all" Well, that's pretty much what he said. Yeah, but he lead the revolution too, so he did deserve it. What I'm saying is that if you have an atheist nation that you plan to become a dictator with a cult of personality in, you can't say that, because that'll be before your cult takes place. So all the people will think you're a retard. Well, yeah, of course they need a reason to respect you. Kind of like how Jesus had to have stories written about him feeding and healing people before being called the son of God, But Jesus said God blessed him with the power to lead them. Mao can't just say "Yo, I blessed myself with the power to lead y'all"
Why not? And what about all the people who say Jesus IS God?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The afterlife is irrelevant. How so? Not all unsuccessful religions have nor need an afterlife. Fix'd it for ya. If Mao's China was really a religion then they would need some sort of eternal reward to get that many followers. Unless of course...
...they were like Taoism, which would make sense considering how widespread Taoism was in China at the time.
Quote: Oh yes, how did I forget: inb4 you claim that all the times in my post where I say "logic" is speculation
Um...Because it is? I'm not sure you know what the word "logic" means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:29 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Thou shalt not steal needlessly Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary. How do you know? If christianity wanted to survive then they'd want to build up a rich empire. What's the easiest way to build up a rich empire? I know it's not necessary because it's sitting on display in a museum right now. It's not like they've sold it. If they ever do they'll be rich But its also kinda about the legacy... They're already rich. It's not necessary. Even the Pope would agree with me on that.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You get judged in the afterlife. Mormons don't believe that. Mormons aren't really christians. They believe in a different prophet than Jesus as the final profit. Now we're getting somewhere...So in order to be Christian, you must believe in a god and that Jesus was the final prophet. An interesting definition that excludes quite a number of people who describe themselves as Christian...Also, a much more specific definition than the definition of an atheist. Point made. I assume that was sarcasm... but in case it wasn't I'll go along with it, less typing for me. I was saying MY point was made, not yours. It wasn't sarcasm; you have shown yourself that atheism is a less specific term than Christianity.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I never said all interpretations dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretationDid I, ah, mis interpret that? xd Most likely. EDIT: I just realized how stupid that comment was. All =/= whatever. Example, there are 5 red balls and 3 green ones. You can either have all of the balls or whatever ball you like. Oh, so this entire line of conversation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant "whatever interpretation" to mean "all interpretations". If you look at the context of the conversation, you can see how I'd make such a mistake. You meant it to mean "a Christian is a person who obeys whatever their own interpretation of the Bible.", while I took it to mean "A Christian is a person who obeys whatever person's interpretation of the Bible.". That makes more sense. It was a simple mistake, and I apologize. If that's the case, however, then I'm left wondering how Mormons aren't Christians. After all, they follow an interpretation of the Bible. Does the bible say that whatshisname-the-mormon-prophet was a prophet? I thought not. It doesn't say he wasn't. And even if it did, as I've already shown, there are plenty of sects of Christianity that directly contradict what the Bible supposedly says. It doesn't seem to matter too much what the Bible says as long as you interpret it someway else.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: All the other interpretations are branch specific, and catholicism is a specific branch which probably didn't endorse genocide. The Crusades were certainly a genocide that was endorsed by the Catholic Church. In the name of God. How does being in the name of God prevent if from being called a genocide? Its not needless killing, its needed killing, according to their views. So as long as you don't call it genocide, it's not genocide?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Thou shalt not kill unless it's justified is pretty much given. No, no it's not. And there are plenty of Christians who are pacifists because of it. That's actually a very good example of what I'm talking about. And they probably believe needless killing is killing at all. There is something wrong with that sentence. I can't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry. Those christians believe any killing is needless killing. Exactly. That's why the "justified" isn't a given; because it isn't given at all.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago. Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian. Considering I've never heard of Jainism, nor have most people I've asked since I read that, I'd say it has. Sure there are probably still Jainists around, but not a lot of them, and to be one of the dominant religions in the world, you have to kill to get there. You didn't say "wouldn't dominate the world", you said "would've died off". Well considering I don't know any Jainists, I would say it practically has died off. If there are so few practitioners of a religion that there's a big chance that a given individual doesn't know any, it probably has died off. That's because you live (I assume) in the US. Ask anyone in India and they would be able to tell you what Jainism is.
This raises the question: Is a religion like scientology considered alive? It doesn't have many true followers, but we hear about it quite a bit.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Stopped in the beginning Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..." I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel" I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time. George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God. Quote: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity I'm sorry, you have failed. Try again? What did I just fail at? You What you described, again, isn't "atheism". Then what is it? I It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. So you deny saying that? But... but... just go up and look for yourself. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And tell me then, how did the universe appear? Who says it did? You believe in a steady state universe... Some logic to prove time must have had a beginning: 1. Assume the universe is a steady state universe 2. This means that 999 billion years ago, there was still a 999 billion years ago 3. And at that point there was still a 999 billion years ago. 4. On and on and on forever. 5. This means that from the point we end at after going on and on forever is infinity years away from now 6. Which means we would never reach the moment in time that we're at now. 7. Which means I wouldn't be able to prove that there wasn't a steady state universe right here. And alternative argument against a steady state universe is the with dark energy everything would be so far apart that we couldn't see it. /steady state I do not believe in a steady state universe. I actually believe in the Big Bang; I just don't believe the universe didn't exist before it. Again, though, this has nothing to do with my atheism. I was making fun of your (and my) religion... Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh wait, you don't know Pretty great religion we've got there Better than making s**t up, if you ask me. If you can feel a spiritual connection with God its not really making it up... If he doesn't exist, then he's made up. But you can't prove he doesn't exist. As I have said multiple time, I can actually see how a god could exist. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused Maybe because babies can look up to their parents and chinese people can't? Do Chinese people not have parents? sweatdrop No, but the communist party made the society atheist. They weren't really able to look up to their parents then, so who do they look up to? I'll give you 3 guesses. Atheism doesn't mean you can't look up to your parents. When your 40 will you look up to your parents? And anyway, from what I've seen so far, you would consider letting your parents make some decisions for you 'cause you trust their judgment a "religion". Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Also because of the fact that babies probably aren't as smart as the average chinese person. The only thing most babies care about is "FOOD!" "DRINK" "SLEEP". Until they're old enough to look up to their parents, who then teach them that there's a God. So wait...Your argument is that Chinese people need to depend on a God because they're smarter and less dependent than a baby. Pretty much If you're less dependent than a baby, you'd think you wouldn't need to depend on things like God as much as a baby. That's kind of what "less dependent" means. Because remember, God supplies you with all the food and drink you need, and he delivers it straight to you. And he sings you to sleep. Quote: Quote: Quote: This is, yet again, pointless speculation. You have no idea that that was the reason why people worshiped Mao, and you have no evidence to back up the claim that atheism makes one more vulnerable to conversion than theism. Besides logic, you're right, I don't have any evidence. What logic? Atheists need someone to look up to? Quote: Quote: Quote: I, however, have a study that shows that those unaffiliated with a religious institution are actually less likely to convert than Catholics or Protestants: http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx Well no s**t. The american society isn't atheist. If a society is atheist it does need someone to look up to that's just as high as God. How do you know that? Even if we put aside the fact that that was a statement completely free of evidence or reasoning, it doesn't even make any sense. You realize that societies are made up of individual people, right? If being atheist doesn't make you more prone to conversion as an individual, how does it make you more prone to conversion as a society? Are sociologists the same as psychologists? I thought not. An individual is one person. A society is a mass of people. If you can't see the difference I give up. Quote: Quote: Quote: A limited study, sure, and probably not very applicable to eastern beliefs in China. But the fact remains that you have no evidence, that that was a pretty interesting study. I have logic. Do you have any logic that supports your study? 1. Atheists are less prone to conversion than many theists. 2. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are atheist. 3. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are less prone to conversion than many theists. A simple definition of "atheist society", mind you, but certainly more logical than your seemingly random justifications. I think you're still making the mistake of thinking a cult of personality is a religion. The reason most atheists don't convert is probably because most atheists are like the people in this guild who think that religion is awful. However, if you follow the leader of your society, it can't be compared with religion in any way, until it turns into something major in which you can make small comparisons. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Great for him Moving on... I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract. Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. Right, because remember, international borders are the easiest thing to move between. Just look at how many people fled the Soviet Union with no problem in the Cold War. Quote: But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in. I'm not interested in things that I can disprove. Your example had nothing to do with the Social Contract, and it certainly didn't "disprove" almost 250 years of political science. You Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. That doesn't make any sense unless you think of it the way I do, sorry, but I can't understand it. Maybe you could try wording it differently. You can't really chose to be under a different system of government. It'd probably going to be pointless. Rousseau took a whole book to explain it, and you won't even wait until you know what it is before you start "disproving" it. You Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I call bullshit. See, unlike you, I accept that ad hom is a fact of life and get over it. But strangely for you if I do it its ad hom, but if you do it its fine. Excuse me for not being able to understand a block of text which makes no sense whatsoever. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But laws and definite. People can twist their sense of religion to say "God wants me to do this, I'll be rewarded in the afterlife" What do you think lawyers are for? Sure, but even lawyers can't tell the court that killing is OK. Sure they can. You can get off charge-free if it's in self defense. Hell, in Texas you'll get off as long as you prove they were in front of your yard. And that only exists because some lawyer and judge both twisted the law to say that's what it said. So... a lawyer can say that the charges were OK no matter what they're charging? So if I went out and murdered a random person for no reason I would be fine? If you had a good enough lawyer. You believe that? Fine, I think I'll go rob some banks, when I get caught, I'll hire the best lawyer ever and offer to pay him with the money I got from robbing. I'm gonna have a great time. Quote: I just realized something: Are you talking about religion being subjective in that the "afterlife" punishment is up to opinion? Because that's not what I've been arguing about, and I just realized that that's what you might mean. Yes, the only time where religion is really applicable is when your talking about the afterlife. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate? My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily. Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion. Ok, but then when I show that many people in anti-secularist countries can be practicing another religion secretly and that religion is forced in countries like that You haven't shown that yet. I just said it. Respond Quote: Quote: you need to show that people were forced to take part in Mao's Cult of Personality. Why on earth would I need to show that? That's not what I'm arguing. That's what you're arguing; You need to show that. I've already shown that his cult of personality existed, and many people seemed to believe in it. Now you need to show that a lot of those people were just being forced. You're right; this debate is bizarre. You seem to have switched sides or something. Some logic: 1. You think Mao's cult of personality was a religion, I don't 2. I point out that religion is subjective 3. You point out that in anti-secularist countries, they force people to be part of a religion. Therefore religion isn't subjective I've never said that religion isn't subjective. I said that government was also subjective. And I'd still like evidence to back that up. Google definitions taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" I don't get how government takes place within the mind or is modified on an individual bias. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not? Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings) That's pretty much how politics does work. You do something, or many things that are great, and you get into a higher office. Yup. Government can be the same as religion. That's reality, not government... if government was the same as religion then government would be a lot more straightforward. "Do you trust the government" "No" "Off to jail with you" Unless I don't get what you're saying Yeah, I think you're talking about "afterlife" punishment. In which case the difference isn't between "government" and "religion", both of which are real systems, but the difference between "real" and "imaginary". Imaginary exists within the mind. That's what subjective means. Real exists in the real world (hence the name) therefore it doesn't take place in the mind. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all" Well, that's pretty much what he said. Yeah, but he lead the revolution too, so he did deserve it. What I'm saying is that if you have an atheist nation that you plan to become a dictator with a cult of personality in, you can't say that, because that'll be before your cult takes place. So all the people will think you're a retard. Well, yeah, of course they need a reason to respect you. Kind of like how Jesus had to have stories written about him feeding and healing people before being called the son of God, But Jesus said God blessed him with the power to lead them. Mao can't just say "Yo, I blessed myself with the power to lead y'all" Why not? And what about all the people who say Jesus IS God? They need to be smarter. Genetics says you only get half your genes from your dad. Unless Mary had the exact genotype as God, then I'm pretty sure Jesus isn't God. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The afterlife is irrelevant. How so? Not all unsuccessful religions have nor need an afterlife. Fix'd it for ya. If Mao's China was really a religion then they would need some sort of eternal reward to get that many followers. Unless of course... ...they were like Taoism, which would make sense considering how widespread Taoism was in China at the time. I wouldn't exactly consider them Taoist if they advocated the cultural revolution, and supported a genociding government... Quote: Quote: Oh yes, how did I forget: inb4 you claim that all the times in my post where I say "logic" is speculation Um...Because it is? I'm not sure you know what the word "logic" means. Hey, I'm surprised, you didn't. Kudos for you. That being said, how is contradicting your views by showing you obvious differences between two organizations illogical? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:07 am
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Thou shalt not steal needlessly Have you ever been to Vatican? There are so many things there that have been stolen from all around the world. None of it is necessary. How do you know? If christianity wanted to survive then they'd want to build up a rich empire. What's the easiest way to build up a rich empire? I know it's not necessary because it's sitting on display in a museum right now. It's not like they've sold it. If they ever do they'll be rich But its also kinda about the legacy... They're already rich. It's not necessary. Even the Pope would agree with me on that. And what about the legacy? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too happy if I made a religion and when it died out, people came to explore our riches and all they found were a few gold coins, and some statues.
That's a pretty stupid reason to steal things from other people, especially if you believe the world's going to end after awhile and none of that will matter later.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You get judged in the afterlife. Mormons don't believe that. Mormons aren't really christians. They believe in a different prophet than Jesus as the final profit. Now we're getting somewhere...So in order to be Christian, you must believe in a god and that Jesus was the final prophet. An interesting definition that excludes quite a number of people who describe themselves as Christian...Also, a much more specific definition than the definition of an atheist. Point made. I assume that was sarcasm... but in case it wasn't I'll go along with it, less typing for me. I was saying MY point was made, not yours. It wasn't sarcasm; you have shown yourself that atheism is a less specific term than Christianity. Even I don't believe that. I was defining Christianity for you. However, the whole source of this debate was whether the holocaust was the fault of christianity, which you can't say it was because I'm sure Catholicism doesn't advocate genocide unless its against a society that is clearly against their God.
And the Jews were clearly against Hitler's God (Jesus). They even were responsible for his crucifixion, or so he thought. The Nazis' version of the Oberammergau Passion Play is an excellent example of that.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I never said all interpretations dl1371 A christian is anybody who obeys the bible, whatever interpretationDid I, ah, mis interpret that? xd Most likely. EDIT: I just realized how stupid that comment was. All =/= whatever. Example, there are 5 red balls and 3 green ones. You can either have all of the balls or whatever ball you like. Oh, so this entire line of conversation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant "whatever interpretation" to mean "all interpretations". If you look at the context of the conversation, you can see how I'd make such a mistake. You meant it to mean "a Christian is a person who obeys whatever their own interpretation of the Bible.", while I took it to mean "A Christian is a person who obeys whatever person's interpretation of the Bible.". That makes more sense. It was a simple mistake, and I apologize. If that's the case, however, then I'm left wondering how Mormons aren't Christians. After all, they follow an interpretation of the Bible. Does the bible say that whatshisname-the-mormon-prophet was a prophet? I thought not. It doesn't say he wasn't. And even if it did, as I've already shown, there are plenty of sects of Christianity that directly contradict what the Bible supposedly says. It doesn't seem to matter too much what the Bible says as long as you interpret it someway else. And those sects aren't christians, they're some other religion.
For God's sake, make up your mind. Is a Christian anyone who adheres to whatever interpretation of the Bible, (Including a Mormon's) or your interpretation of the Bible?
Quote: However, didn't the bible also say that the age of prophets had ended? I don't get how a guy could be a prophet after the age of prophets ends...
I don't know. You'd have to ask a Mormon. I never said it made sense; none of them do, really.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If they obeyed "Thou shalt not kill" Christianity would've died off a long time ago. Jainism didn't, not that that has much to do with whether or not you have to be pacifist to be truly Christian. Considering I've never heard of Jainism, nor have most people I've asked since I read that, I'd say it has. Sure there are probably still Jainists around, but not a lot of them, and to be one of the dominant religions in the world, you have to kill to get there. You didn't say "wouldn't dominate the world", you said "would've died off". Well considering I don't know any Jainists, I would say it practically has died off. If there are so few practitioners of a religion that there's a big chance that a given individual doesn't know any, it probably has died off. That's because you live (I assume) in the US. Ask anyone in India and they would be able to tell you what Jainism is. OK, but how widespread is Jainism in India?
To quote wikipedia:
Wikipedia With 10 to 12 million followers,[46] Jainism is among the smallest of the major world religions, but in India its influence is much greater than these numbers would suggest. Jains live throughout India. Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat have the largest Jain populations among Indian states. Karnataka, Bundelkhand and Madhya Pradesh have relatively large Jain populations. There is a large following in Punjab, especially in Ludhiana and Patiala, and there used to be many Jains in Lahore (Punjab's historic capital) and other cities before the Partition of 1947, after which many fled to India. There are many Jain communities in different parts of India and around the world. They may speak local languages or follow different rituals but essentially follow the same principles.
So about the same size and influence as the Jewish faith.
Quote: I mean, most of us know of druids and stuff. But there aren't really many druids left today. This raises the question: Is a religion like scientology considered alive? It doesn't have many true followers, but we hear about it quite a bit.
Good question. If you think about the "classic" dead religions, like Greek mythology, you can also ask questions there. For instance, if someone decided today to believe in Greek mythology, would that religion all of a sudden be considered "resurrected"?
"Dead", to me, always meant that no one believed in it. But there are probably always at least a few people in the world who believe in any religion at any given time.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Stopped in the beginning Assholes like that piss me off, I'd love to tell him how much sense atheism makes. "You see, first there was nothing. And then the universe appeared." "How did it appear?" "That's a mystery" "This sounds like a pretty ******** up religion" "You're insulting me, I'm gonna go to the forums of GAU and make a rant about it" "But you like to insult us" "So?" "AAA! And atheists complain about arguing with theists being impossible..." I think it'd go something like that, except for without the GAU part, he'd just say, "I'm offended, that's mean and cruel" I think you're the first person I've ever met who didn't like George Carlin, Christians and Jews included. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest comedians of all time. George Carlin wouldn't be offended; he'd just laugh. What you described, again, isn't "atheism". It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. You don't have to be atheist to believe that, and you don't have to believe that to be atheist. All atheist means is that you don't believe in God. Quote: Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity I'm sorry, you have failed. Try again? What did I just fail at? You What you described, again, isn't "atheism". Then what is it? I It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. So you deny saying that? But... but... just go up and look for yourself. Deny saying what? The sentence I quoted? How on earth could you take me quoting my own sentence as my denying I ever said it? Isn't me quoting it the exact opposite of denying that I said it? I quoted it because it answered your question. You asked what you had described. I had already answered that question, so I just quoted myself. EDIT: Oh, see, there was another misunderstanding. By "it", you must have meant "atheism", not what you described. Well, in that case: Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh wait, you don't know Pretty great religion we've got there Better than making s**t up, if you ask me. If you can feel a spiritual connection with God its not really making it up... If he doesn't exist, then he's made up. But you can't prove he doesn't exist. As I have said multiple time, I can actually see how a god could exist. Well, yeah, that's why I'm a weak atheist. It's really the same reason I don't make things up so I'll have more "answers" to my questions about the world. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Most babies actually don't need a god, they were just raised in that religion Why do Chinese people need a god and babies don't? confused Maybe because babies can look up to their parents and chinese people can't? Do Chinese people not have parents? sweatdrop No, but the communist party made the society atheist. They weren't really able to look up to their parents then, so who do they look up to? I'll give you 3 guesses. Atheism doesn't mean you can't look up to your parents. When your 40 will you look up to your parents? You don't have to be 40 to be atheist. lol Quote: And anyway, from what I've seen so far, you would consider letting your parents make some decisions for you 'cause you trust their judgment a "religion". Wait, are you saying my parents' judgement is a religion? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Also because of the fact that babies probably aren't as smart as the average chinese person. The only thing most babies care about is "FOOD!" "DRINK" "SLEEP". Until they're old enough to look up to their parents, who then teach them that there's a God. So wait...Your argument is that Chinese people need to depend on a God because they're smarter and less dependent than a baby. Pretty much If you're less dependent than a baby, you'd think you wouldn't need to depend on things like God as much as a baby. That's kind of what "less dependent" means. Because remember, God supplies you with all the food and drink you need, and he delivers it straight to you. And he sings you to sleep. I don't understand what that has to do with Chinese people being more dependent on God than babies. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: This is, yet again, pointless speculation. You have no idea that that was the reason why people worshiped Mao, and you have no evidence to back up the claim that atheism makes one more vulnerable to conversion than theism. Besides logic, you're right, I don't have any evidence. What logic? Atheists need someone to look up to? That's not logic. That's just a statement. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I, however, have a study that shows that those unaffiliated with a religious institution are actually less likely to convert than Catholics or Protestants: http://pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx Well no s**t. The american society isn't atheist. If a society is atheist it does need someone to look up to that's just as high as God. How do you know that? Even if we put aside the fact that that was a statement completely free of evidence or reasoning, it doesn't even make any sense. You realize that societies are made up of individual people, right? If being atheist doesn't make you more prone to conversion as an individual, how does it make you more prone to conversion as a society? Are sociologists the same as psychologists? I thought not. An individual is one person. A society is a mass of people. If you can't see the difference I give up. Fair enough; people act differently in a group setting. That doesn't mean that all of a sudden they act completely opposite to how they'd act as an individual. There's a reason psychology and sociology overlap so much. There's an entire field called "social psychology" which encompasses both. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: A limited study, sure, and probably not very applicable to eastern beliefs in China. But the fact remains that you have no evidence, that that was a pretty interesting study. I have logic. Do you have any logic that supports your study? 1. Atheists are less prone to conversion than many theists. 2. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are atheist. 3. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are less prone to conversion than many theists. A simple definition of "atheist society", mind you, but certainly more logical than your seemingly random justifications. I think you're still making the mistake of thinking a cult of personality is a religion. The reason most atheists don't convert is probably because most atheists are like the people in this guild who think that religion is awful. However, if you follow the leader of your society, it can't be compared with religion in any way, until it turns into something major in which you can make small comparisons. Why would an atheist be more prone to worshiping the leader of their society? Oh, and inb4 "Because they need to fill the hole in their hearts with gawd!" That's simply not true, and I think you know it. I won't believe it until you give me evidence to believe it. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Great for him Moving on... I'm sorry you don't have the curiosity to bother reading a little about the Social Contract. Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. Right, because remember, international borders are the easiest thing to move between. Just look at how many people fled the Soviet Union with no problem in the Cold War. Quote: But that's all philosophy that you're not interested in. I'm not interested in things that I can disprove. Your example had nothing to do with the Social Contract, and it certainly didn't "disprove" almost 250 years of political science. You Government is a choice, in my opinion. You're not subject to it unless you choose to be. Just like religion. Yes, people may punish you with those laws, but that's only because you're not under another system of government that will protect your freedoms from that alien government. It's war, technically. That doesn't make any sense unless you think of it the way I do, sorry, but I can't understand it. Maybe you could try wording it differently. You can't really chose to be under a different system of government. It'd probably going to be pointless. Rousseau took a whole book to explain it, and you won't even wait until you know what it is before you start "disproving" it. You Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I call bullshit. See, unlike you, I accept that ad hom is a fact of life and get over it. But strangely for you if I do it its ad hom, but if you do it its fine. What did I do? Quote: Excuse me for not being able to understand a block of text which makes no sense whatsoever. It's not that you didn't understand it; that's why I tried to stop earlier. It's that you had the arrogance to "disprove" the basis of all modern political science without even bothering to read about it. My "block of text" was there in case you had followed the link I provided and were interested in further discussion on the matter; otherwise, I was fully prepared to forget about it and move on. I'm sorry if you felt insulted by that. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And you were the one that convinced me otherwise... And if I failed to show evidence how come you're now arguing my side? Is it just me, or is this a strange debate? My side: Most people took part in Mao's religion voluntarily. Your side: Many people were forced to take part in Mao's religion. Ok, but then when I show that many people in anti-secularist countries can be practicing another religion secretly and that religion is forced in countries like that You haven't shown that yet. I just said it. Respond I feel like I missed something...Where did you do that? Quote: Quote: Quote: you need to show that people were forced to take part in Mao's Cult of Personality. Why on earth would I need to show that? That's not what I'm arguing. That's what you're arguing; You need to show that. I've already shown that his cult of personality existed, and many people seemed to believe in it. Now you need to show that a lot of those people were just being forced. You're right; this debate is bizarre. You seem to have switched sides or something. Some logic: 1. You think Mao's cult of personality was a religion, I don't 2. I point out that religion is subjective 3. You point out that in anti-secularist countries, they force people to be part of a religion. Therefore religion isn't subjective I've never said that religion isn't subjective. I said that government was also subjective. And I'd still like evidence to back that up. Google definitions taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" I don't get how government takes place within the mind or is modified on an individual bias. Because you can believe whatever you want about government, just like you can believe whatever you want about religion. Of course, if you do something that goes against that government then you'll be punished, just like with religion. But you're free to think whatever you want. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But its not like God said "You were meant to lead" Is it like the Divine Rights of Kings or not? Yes, he has divine rights. But he earned it (Like the Pope, yet another head of a state who is also the head of a religion) rather than was born with it. (Like kings) That's pretty much how politics does work. You do something, or many things that are great, and you get into a higher office. Yup. Government can be the same as religion. That's reality, not government... if government was the same as religion then government would be a lot more straightforward. "Do you trust the government" "No" "Off to jail with you" Unless I don't get what you're saying Yeah, I think you're talking about "afterlife" punishment. In which case the difference isn't between "government" and "religion", both of which are real systems, but the difference between "real" and "imaginary". Imaginary exists within the mind. That's what subjective means. Real exists in the real world (hence the name) therefore it doesn't take place in the mind. Yup. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Did Mao take them to the afterlife? And if Mao was their God, he still can't say, "I have chosen myself to lead y'all" Well, that's pretty much what he said. Yeah, but he lead the revolution too, so he did deserve it. What I'm saying is that if you have an atheist nation that you plan to become a dictator with a cult of personality in, you can't say that, because that'll be before your cult takes place. So all the people will think you're a retard. Well, yeah, of course they need a reason to respect you. Kind of like how Jesus had to have stories written about him feeding and healing people before being called the son of God, But Jesus said God blessed him with the power to lead them. Mao can't just say "Yo, I blessed myself with the power to lead y'all" Why not? And what about all the people who say Jesus IS God? They need to be smarter. Genetics says you only get half your genes from your dad. Unless Mary had the exact genotype as God, then I'm pretty sure Jesus isn't God. So I think we've established that a Christian is someone who adheres to your interpretation of the Bible, not whatever interpretation. In which case, my original point that Christianity is far more specific is true. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The afterlife is irrelevant. How so? Not all unsuccessful religions have nor need an afterlife. Fix'd it for ya. If Mao's China was really a religion then they would need some sort of eternal reward to get that many followers. Unless of course... ...they were like Taoism, which would make sense considering how widespread Taoism was in China at the time. I wouldn't exactly consider them Taoist if they advocated the cultural revolution, and supported a genociding government... I'm not saying they were taoist. I'm saying they didn't necessarily believe in an afterlife, or at least were pretty vague about the whole thing. Just like Taoists. Honestly, that's an interesting question: What did cultists of Mao think about the afterlife? Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh yes, how did I forget: inb4 you claim that all the times in my post where I say "logic" is speculation Um...Because it is? I'm not sure you know what the word "logic" means. Hey, I'm surprised, you didn't. Kudos for you. That being said, how is contradicting your views by showing you obvious differences between two organizations illogical? Because the "obvious differences" are just statements; there's no reasoning behind them. You're basically just saying "They're different because..." and leaving it there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:03 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Quote: Quote: I know it's not necessary because it's sitting on display in a museum right now. It's not like they've sold it. If they ever do they'll be rich But its also kinda about the legacy... They're already rich. It's not necessary. Even the Pope would agree with me on that. And what about the legacy? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too happy if I made a religion and when it died out, people came to explore our riches and all they found were a few gold coins, and some statues. That's a pretty stupid reason to steal things from other people, especially if you believe the world's going to end after awhile and none of that will matter later.
And, for a final reason, I think they also think everything should be God's, so they claim it in his name.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Now we're getting somewhere...So in order to be Christian, you must believe in a god and that Jesus was the final prophet. An interesting definition that excludes quite a number of people who describe themselves as Christian...Also, a much more specific definition than the definition of an atheist. Point made. I assume that was sarcasm... but in case it wasn't I'll go along with it, less typing for me. I was saying MY point was made, not yours. It wasn't sarcasm; you have shown yourself that atheism is a less specific term than Christianity. Even I don't believe that. I was defining Christianity for you. However, the whole source of this debate was whether the holocaust was the fault of christianity, which you can't say it was because I'm sure Catholicism doesn't advocate genocide unless its against a society that is clearly against their God. And the Jews were clearly against Hitler's God (Jesus). They even were responsible for his crucifixion, or so he thought. The Nazis' version of the Oberammergau Passion Play is an excellent example of that.
I'd also like to point out that Jews only accounted for half of the people in the holocaust, and some of the others were things that a catholic would hate (gays), and others were things they shouldn't.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh, so this entire line of conversation stemmed from a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant "whatever interpretation" to mean "all interpretations". If you look at the context of the conversation, you can see how I'd make such a mistake. You meant it to mean "a Christian is a person who obeys whatever their own interpretation of the Bible.", while I took it to mean "A Christian is a person who obeys whatever person's interpretation of the Bible.". That makes more sense. It was a simple mistake, and I apologize. If that's the case, however, then I'm left wondering how Mormons aren't Christians. After all, they follow an interpretation of the Bible. Does the bible say that whatshisname-the-mormon-prophet was a prophet? I thought not. It doesn't say he wasn't. And even if it did, as I've already shown, there are plenty of sects of Christianity that directly contradict what the Bible supposedly says. It doesn't seem to matter too much what the Bible says as long as you interpret it someway else. And those sects aren't christians, they're some other religion. For God's sake, make up your mind. Is a Christian anyone who adheres to whatever interpretation of the Bible, (Including a Mormon's) or your interpretation of the Bible?
Quote: Quote: However, didn't the bible also say that the age of prophets had ended? I don't get how a guy could be a prophet after the age of prophets ends... I don't know. You'd have to ask a Mormon. I never said it made sense; none of them do, really.
Dunno, I've never studied the Bible, so I can't say whether they just made that up, or if it says that in the bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: You didn't say "wouldn't dominate the world", you said "would've died off". Well considering I don't know any Jainists, I would say it practically has died off. If there are so few practitioners of a religion that there's a big chance that a given individual doesn't know any, it probably has died off. That's because you live (I assume) in the US. Ask anyone in India and they would be able to tell you what Jainism is. OK, but how widespread is Jainism in India? To quote wikipedia: Wikipedia With 10 to 12 million followers,[46] Jainism is among the smallest of the major world religions, but in India its influence is much greater than these numbers would suggest. Jains live throughout India. Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat have the largest Jain populations among Indian states. Karnataka, Bundelkhand and Madhya Pradesh have relatively large Jain populations. There is a large following in Punjab, especially in Ludhiana and Patiala, and there used to be many Jains in Lahore (Punjab's historic capital) and other cities before the Partition of 1947, after which many fled to India. There are many Jain communities in different parts of India and around the world. They may speak local languages or follow different rituals but essentially follow the same principles. So about the same size and influence as the Jewish faith.
Quote: Quote: I mean, most of us know of druids and stuff. But there aren't really many druids left today. This raises the question: Is a religion like scientology considered alive? It doesn't have many true followers, but we hear about it quite a bit. Good question. If you think about the "classic" dead religions, like Greek mythology, you can also ask questions there. For instance, if someone decided today to believe in Greek mythology, would that religion all of a sudden be considered "resurrected"?
Quote: "Dead", to me, always meant that no one believed in it. But there are probably always at least a few people in the world who believe in any religion at any given time.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. So you deny saying that? But... but... just go up and look for yourself. Deny saying what? The sentence I quoted? The sentence I quoted. You said the sentence you quoted, but you also said that atheism is nothing but lack of belief in a deity. Therefore it is atheism. Quote: How on earth could you take me quoting my own sentence as my denying I ever said it? Isn't me quoting it the exact opposite of denying that I said it? I quoted it because it answered your question. You asked what you had described. I had already answered that question, so I just quoted myself. EDIT: Oh, see, there was another misunderstanding. By "it", you must have meant "atheism", not what you described. Well, in that case: Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity. But what I was describing was atheism. Its lack of belief in a deity... Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If you can feel a spiritual connection with God its not really making it up... If he doesn't exist, then he's made up. But you can't prove he doesn't exist. As I have said multiple time, I can actually see how a god could exist. Well, yeah, that's why I'm a weak atheist. It's really the same reason I don't make things up so I'll have more "answers" to my questions about the world. It seems like people who make things up have more answers. Even if they're the wrong one. I take it, since you don't like people who make things up to explain the world, that you're not the biggest fan of string theory? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, but the communist party made the society atheist. They weren't really able to look up to their parents then, so who do they look up to? I'll give you 3 guesses. Atheism doesn't mean you can't look up to your parents. When your 40 will you look up to your parents? You don't have to be 40 to be atheist. lol Well yeah, but most people in an atheist society are adults... Quote: Quote: And anyway, from what I've seen so far, you would consider letting your parents make some decisions for you 'cause you trust their judgment a "religion". Wait, are you saying my parents' judgement is a religion? You say that people "worshiping" Mao is a religion. There are several religions that don't trust their God with everything. If I don't trust my parents with everything, but still look up to them am I religious? Quote: Quote: Quote: If you're less dependent than a baby, you'd think you wouldn't need to depend on things like God as much as a baby. That's kind of what "less dependent" means. Because remember, God supplies you with all the food and drink you need, and he delivers it straight to you. And he sings you to sleep. I don't understand what that has to do with Chinese people being more dependent on God than babies. That was babies being dependent on their parents... Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Besides logic, you're right, I don't have any evidence. What logic? Atheists need someone to look up to? That's not logic. That's just a statement. Which makes sense. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well no s**t. The american society isn't atheist. If a society is atheist it does need someone to look up to that's just as high as God. How do you know that? Even if we put aside the fact that that was a statement completely free of evidence or reasoning, it doesn't even make any sense. You realize that societies are made up of individual people, right? If being atheist doesn't make you more prone to conversion as an individual, how does it make you more prone to conversion as a society? Are sociologists the same as psychologists? I thought not. An individual is one person. A society is a mass of people. If you can't see the difference I give up. Fair enough; people act differently in a group setting. That doesn't mean that all of a sudden they act completely opposite to how they'd act as an individual. There's a reason psychology and sociology overlap so much. There's an entire field called "social psychology" which encompasses both. Well still, a single atheist can't alone worship someone because they'll look like a retard. But a whole atheist society can because if everyone's doing it, it doesn't seem so weird. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I have logic. Do you have any logic that supports your study? 1. Atheists are less prone to conversion than many theists. 2. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are atheist. 3. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are less prone to conversion than many theists. A simple definition of "atheist society", mind you, but certainly more logical than your seemingly random justifications. I think you're still making the mistake of thinking a cult of personality is a religion. The reason most atheists don't convert is probably because most atheists are like the people in this guild who think that religion is awful. However, if you follow the leader of your society, it can't be compared with religion in any way, until it turns into something major in which you can make small comparisons. Why would an atheist be more prone to worshiping the leader of their society? Oh, and inb4 "Because they need to fill the hole in their hearts with gawd!" That's simply not true, and I think you know it. I won't believe it until you give me evidence to believe it. Your study is in fact evidence for my point. Some more evidence is that there have been several atheist dictatorships in the world. The reason they don't need to "fill the hole in their hearts with gawd!" is because most atheists (if this guild is anything to go by) hate religion. However a leader won't seem like a "silly" being where it's "impossible to prove that he exists" Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That doesn't make any sense unless you think of it the way I do, sorry, but I can't understand it. Maybe you could try wording it differently. You can't really chose to be under a different system of government. It'd probably going to be pointless. Rousseau took a whole book to explain it, and you won't even wait until you know what it is before you start "disproving" it. You Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I call bullshit. See, unlike you, I accept that ad hom is a fact of life and get over it. But strangely for you if I do it its ad hom, but if you do it its fine. What did I do? Well you kinda mocked the fact that I couldn't understand your text... Quote: Quote: Excuse me for not being able to understand a block of text which makes no sense whatsoever. It's not that you didn't understand it; that's why I tried to stop earlier. It's that you had the arrogance to "disprove" the basis of all modern political science without even bothering to read about it. My "block of text" was there in case you had followed the link I provided and were interested in further discussion on the matter; otherwise, I was fully prepared to forget about it and move on. I'm sorry if you felt insulted by that. I tried to 'disprove' it because that's what I understood from the text. I'd like to point out, that reading through the posts under me, I can't see any link attached to the same quote tree as that block of text. Maybe someone removed it. Quote: Quote: Quote: I feel like I missed something...Where did you do that? Just now? Quote: Quote: Some logic: 1. You think Mao's cult of personality was a religion, I don't 2. I point out that religion is subjective 3. You point out that in anti-secularist countries, they force people to be part of a religion. Therefore religion isn't subjective I've never said that religion isn't subjective. I said that government was also subjective. And I'd still like evidence to back that up. Google definitions taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" I don't get how government takes place within the mind or is modified on an individual bias. Because you can believe whatever you want about government, just like you can believe whatever you want about religion. Of course, if you do something that goes against that government then you'll be punished, just like with religion. But you're free to think whatever you want. But with real religion the punishment is in the afterlife. There is no exact set of laws saying "Yo, do this and you'll go to heaven" as you mentioned earlier, it can be interpreted many different ways. Laws however, and pretty clear. Also, religious people can make their own religion and say that God told them to do this. You can't make your own government and set down your own laws. Not unless you want to get yourself hauled into jail. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's reality, not government... if government was the same as religion then government would be a lot more straightforward. "Do you trust the government" "No" "Off to jail with you" Unless I don't get what you're saying Yeah, I think you're talking about "afterlife" punishment. In which case the difference isn't between "government" and "religion", both of which are real systems, but the difference between "real" and "imaginary". Imaginary exists within the mind. That's what subjective means. Real exists in the real world (hence the name) therefore it doesn't take place in the mind. Yup. So government isn't subjective? Or am I misinterpreting you? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But Jesus said God blessed him with the power to lead them. Mao can't just say "Yo, I blessed myself with the power to lead y'all" Why not? And what about all the people who say Jesus IS God? They need to be smarter. Genetics says you only get half your genes from your dad. Unless Mary had the exact genotype as God, then I'm pretty sure Jesus isn't God. So I think we've established that a Christian is someone who adheres to your interpretation of the Bible, not whatever interpretation. Well I'm just trying to be accurate. I know "The father, son, and holy spirit" and I don't get how the son can be the father. If I'm wrong, correct me. [quote[In which case, my original point that Christianity is far more specific is true.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Not all unsuccessful religions have nor need an afterlife. Fix'd it for ya. If Mao's China was really a religion then they would need some sort of eternal reward to get that many followers. Unless of course... ...they were like Taoism, which would make sense considering how widespread Taoism was in China at the time. I wouldn't exactly consider them Taoist if they advocated the cultural revolution, and supported a genociding government...
I'm not saying they were taoist. I'm saying they didn't necessarily believe in an afterlife, or at least were pretty vague about the whole thing. Just like Taoists.I see.
Quote: Honestly, that's an interesting question: What did cultists of Mao think about the afterlife?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh yes, how did I forget: inb4 you claim that all the times in my post where I say "logic" is speculation Um...Because it is? I'm not sure you know what the word "logic" means. Hey, I'm surprised, you didn't. Kudos for you. That being said, how is contradicting your views by showing you obvious differences between two organizations illogical? Because the "obvious differences" are just statements; there's no reasoning behind them. You're basically just saying "They're different because..." and leaving it there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:23 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I assume that was sarcasm... but in case it wasn't I'll go along with it, less typing for me. I was saying MY point was made, not yours. It wasn't sarcasm; you have shown yourself that atheism is a less specific term than Christianity. Even I don't believe that. I was defining Christianity for you. However, the whole source of this debate was whether the holocaust was the fault of christianity, which you can't say it was because I'm sure Catholicism doesn't advocate genocide unless its against a society that is clearly against their God. And the Jews were clearly against Hitler's God (Jesus). They even were responsible for his crucifixion, or so he thought. The Nazis' version of the Oberammergau Passion Play is an excellent example of that. But the Jews weren't responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.
Well, that's what you think. The Nazis had a different interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: So the Nazis weren't really Catholics.
Well, most of them were baptized by the Catholic Church.
Antisemitism was pretty rampant throughout Catholicism until very recently, and it's still certainly present. Mostly because they thought the Jews had killed Jesus. To quote Archbishop Karol Kmetko during the Holocaust in response to a Jewish plea for help, "You shall not merely be deported. You shall be killed...And this will be your punishment for your killing of our saviour."
Quote: I'd also like to point out that Jews only accounted for half of the people in the holocaust, and some of the others were things that a catholic would hate (gays), and others were things they shouldn't.
Well, yes. Gays were killed, as well as atheists and members of the Orthodox Church, although those people (atheists and Orthodox Catholics) were probably killed more because they were PoW's more than anything.
Still, the "Final Solution" was certainly the product of antisemitism seeded by a Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Does the bible say that whatshisname-the-mormon-prophet was a prophet? I thought not. It doesn't say he wasn't. And even if it did, as I've already shown, there are plenty of sects of Christianity that directly contradict what the Bible supposedly says. It doesn't seem to matter too much what the Bible says as long as you interpret it someway else. And those sects aren't christians, they're some other religion. For God's sake, make up your mind. Is a Christian anyone who adheres to whatever interpretation of the Bible, (Including a Mormon's) or your interpretation of the Bible? I have made up my mind. If someone contradicts the bible in their religion they're not following an interpretation of it. Is it really that hard?
Yes, because there are multiple Bibles that all say different things.
I'd be willing to bet EVERY supposed Christian contradicts at least one of them.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well considering I don't know any Jainists, I would say it practically has died off. If there are so few practitioners of a religion that there's a big chance that a given individual doesn't know any, it probably has died off. That's because you live (I assume) in the US. Ask anyone in India and they would be able to tell you what Jainism is. OK, but how widespread is Jainism in India? To quote wikipedia: Wikipedia With 10 to 12 million followers,[46] Jainism is among the smallest of the major world religions, but in India its influence is much greater than these numbers would suggest. Jains live throughout India. Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat have the largest Jain populations among Indian states. Karnataka, Bundelkhand and Madhya Pradesh have relatively large Jain populations. There is a large following in Punjab, especially in Ludhiana and Patiala, and there used to be many Jains in Lahore (Punjab's historic capital) and other cities before the Partition of 1947, after which many fled to India. There are many Jain communities in different parts of India and around the world. They may speak local languages or follow different rituals but essentially follow the same principles. So about the same size and influence as the Jewish faith. You mean in America, right? Well that makes sense. But you can't say its a major religion at all...
*Shrugs*
The point is it hasn't died, and its signature is its pacifism.
Quote: Quote: "Dead", to me, always meant that no one believed in it. But there are probably always at least a few people in the world who believe in any religion at any given time. Yeah, that was my point with Jainism. Although it isn't "dead" it just is a very small percentage of the world
All the same, 12 million people is not a small number. It's certainly not a dead religion.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I It's a horribly misled interpretation of a largely discredited scientific theory. So you deny saying that? But... but... just go up and look for yourself. Deny saying what? The sentence I quoted? The sentence I quoted. You said the sentence you quoted, but you also said that atheism is nothing but lack of belief in a deity. Therefore it is atheism.
It doesn't take a stance on the existence of a deity. Saying it's atheist is like saying it's anarchy or it's anemic. An atheist doesn't need to believe in it in order to be called an atheist.
Quote: Quote: How on earth could you take me quoting my own sentence as my denying I ever said it? Isn't me quoting it the exact opposite of denying that I said it? I quoted it because it answered your question. You asked what you had described. I had already answered that question, so I just quoted myself. EDIT: Oh, see, there was another misunderstanding. By "it", you must have meant "atheism", not what you described. Well, in that case: Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity. But what I was describing was atheism. Its lack of belief in a deity...
Big Bang Theory =/= Lack of belief in a deity. They're not mutually exclusive, either.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: If you can feel a spiritual connection with God its not really making it up... If he doesn't exist, then he's made up. But you can't prove he doesn't exist. As I have said multiple time, I can actually see how a god could exist. Well, yeah, that's why I'm a weak atheist. It's really the same reason I don't make things up so I'll have more "answers" to my questions about the world. It seems like people who make things up have more answers. Even if they're the wrong one. I take it, since you don't like people who make things up to explain the world, that you're not the biggest fan of string theory?
To be honest, I don't know enough about it to say that I lean one way or the other.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: No, but the communist party made the society atheist. They weren't really able to look up to their parents then, so who do they look up to? I'll give you 3 guesses. Atheism doesn't mean you can't look up to your parents. When your 40 will you look up to your parents? You don't have to be 40 to be atheist. lol Well yeah, but most people in an atheist society are adults...
So are most people in a theist society.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And anyway, from what I've seen so far, you would consider letting your parents make some decisions for you 'cause you trust their judgment a "religion". Wait, are you saying my parents' judgement is a religion? You say that people "worshiping" Mao is a religion. There are several religions that don't trust their God with everything. If I don't trust my parents with everything, but still look up to them am I religious?
Do you worship your parents?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Besides logic, you're right, I don't have any evidence. What logic? Atheists need someone to look up to? That's not logic. That's just a statement. Which makes sense.
Why?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well no s**t. The american society isn't atheist. If a society is atheist it does need someone to look up to that's just as high as God. How do you know that? Even if we put aside the fact that that was a statement completely free of evidence or reasoning, it doesn't even make any sense. You realize that societies are made up of individual people, right? If being atheist doesn't make you more prone to conversion as an individual, how does it make you more prone to conversion as a society? Are sociologists the same as psychologists? I thought not. An individual is one person. A society is a mass of people. If you can't see the difference I give up. Fair enough; people act differently in a group setting. That doesn't mean that all of a sudden they act completely opposite to how they'd act as an individual. There's a reason psychology and sociology overlap so much. There's an entire field called "social psychology" which encompasses both. Well still, a single atheist can't alone worship someone because they'll look like a retard. But a whole atheist society can because if everyone's doing it, it doesn't seem so weird.
Yes, but why are they all going to want to start doing it just because they're atheist?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I have logic. Do you have any logic that supports your study? 1. Atheists are less prone to conversion than many theists. 2. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are atheist. 3. An atheist society is a group of people in which the vast majority are less prone to conversion than many theists. A simple definition of "atheist society", mind you, but certainly more logical than your seemingly random justifications. I think you're still making the mistake of thinking a cult of personality is a religion. The reason most atheists don't convert is probably because most atheists are like the people in this guild who think that religion is awful. However, if you follow the leader of your society, it can't be compared with religion in any way, until it turns into something major in which you can make small comparisons. Why would an atheist be more prone to worshiping the leader of their society? Oh, and inb4 "Because they need to fill the hole in their hearts with gawd!" That's simply not true, and I think you know it. I won't believe it until you give me evidence to believe it. Your study is in fact evidence for my point.
*Raises eyebrows* How so?
Quote: Some more evidence is that there have been several atheist dictatorships in the world.
How is that evidence that an atheist society is more prone to a cult of personality than a theist society? There have been far more examples of theist dictatorships, and dictatorship =/= cult of personality anyway.
Quote: The reason they don't need to "fill the hole in their hearts with gawd!" is because most atheists (if this guild is anything to go by) hate religion. However a leader won't seem like a "silly" being where it's "impossible to prove that he exists"
So what you're saying is that they'd be more easily convinced to convert to a cult of personality than another type of religion. That still doesn't say anything about them being easier to convert than a theist society.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That doesn't make any sense unless you think of it the way I do, sorry, but I can't understand it. Maybe you could try wording it differently. You can't really chose to be under a different system of government. It'd probably going to be pointless. Rousseau took a whole book to explain it, and you won't even wait until you know what it is before you start "disproving" it. You Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. I call bullshit. See, unlike you, I accept that ad hom is a fact of life and get over it. But strangely for you if I do it its ad hom, but if you do it its fine. What did I do? Well you kinda mocked the fact that I couldn't understand your text...
I didn't realize that came across as mocking...I apologize for my insensitivity.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I feel like I missed something...Where did you do that? Just now? What did you say? Because I clearly missed it. Quote: Quote: Quote: Some logic: 1. You think Mao's cult of personality was a religion, I don't 2. I point out that religion is subjective 3. You point out that in anti-secularist countries, they force people to be part of a religion. Therefore religion isn't subjective I've never said that religion isn't subjective. I said that government was also subjective. And I'd still like evidence to back that up. Google definitions taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment" I don't get how government takes place within the mind or is modified on an individual bias. Because you can believe whatever you want about government, just like you can believe whatever you want about religion. Of course, if you do something that goes against that government then you'll be punished, just like with religion. But you're free to think whatever you want. But with real religion the punishment is in the afterlife. There is no exact set of laws saying "Yo, do this and you'll go to heaven" as you mentioned earlier, it can be interpreted many different ways. Laws however, and pretty clear.
That's where you're wrong. Legal laws are just as up to interpretation as religious laws. Otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers.
Quote: Also, religious people can make their own religion and say that God told them to do this. You can't make your own government and set down your own laws.
Sure you can.
Quote: Not unless you want to get yourself hauled into jail.
Ah, well, if you make up your own religion and don't follow the rules of Christianity then you'll burn in hell, at least according to Christians. The difference is one is real and one is not, as far as we know. There are plenty of places where if you break a religious law then you are really punished.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's reality, not government... if government was the same as religion then government would be a lot more straightforward. "Do you trust the government" "No" "Off to jail with you" Unless I don't get what you're saying Yeah, I think you're talking about "afterlife" punishment. In which case the difference isn't between "government" and "religion", both of which are real systems, but the difference between "real" and "imaginary". Imaginary exists within the mind. That's what subjective means. Real exists in the real world (hence the name) therefore it doesn't take place in the mind. Yup. So government isn't subjective? Or am I misinterpreting you?
No, government exists in the mind just as much as religion does. Laws are only enforced because people believe in their authority. It also directs human actions just as much as religion.
Quote: Quote: In which case, my original point that Christianity is far more specific is true. But weren't you trying to argue that christianity has so many interpretations, that all you're left with is "There's a God"?
No, I was trying to sort through what you believed.
I believe there are a shitload of incarnations of Christianity, none of which agree with each other.
Quote: Quote: Honestly, that's an interesting question: What did cultists of Mao think about the afterlife? Probably that there was no afterlife. You forget, they were spiritually atheist.
What does "spiritually atheist" mean, as opposed to just "atheist"?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Oh yes, how did I forget: inb4 you claim that all the times in my post where I say "logic" is speculation Um...Because it is? I'm not sure you know what the word "logic" means. Hey, I'm surprised, you didn't. Kudos for you. That being said, how is contradicting your views by showing you obvious differences between two organizations illogical? Because the "obvious differences" are just statements; there's no reasoning behind them. You're basically just saying "They're different because..." and leaving it there. And some statements don't really need to be explained. If I say: "They're different because government is subjective and religion isn't." going by the fact that you agreed with me a bit up, somewhere in the debate on what's real and false. I think you might believe that statement. In which case it doesn't need to be explained.
But I don't agree with you that religion is subjective and government is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[-Erik-]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/b3/dc/2ab9cd8a46dcb3_flip.png?t=1436247415_6.00_11)
