|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:11 am
 |
|
|
 |
Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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.
But doesn't Catholicism have a specific interpretation of the bible that it adheres to?
Quote: Quote: So the Nazis weren't really Catholics. Well, most of them were baptized by the Catholic Church.
Quote: 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: 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.
Quote: Still, the "Final Solution" was certainly the product of antisemitism seeded by a Catholic interpretation of the Bible.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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: 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: Quote: Quote: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?
A religious person can usually just look up to God for the answers. Although considering "God" varies on what they're thinking at the time, they basically look up to themselves. An atheist makes their own decisions, but when (if) they feel overwhelmed by that they will want someone to look up to.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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: 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.
And there are also a lot more theists in the world than atheists. So it kinda makes sense that there are more theist dictatorships.
Quote: 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: 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: Quote: I feel like I missed something...Where did you do that? Just now? What did you say? Because I clearly missed it. Now I forget gonk Quote: Quote: Quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
Quote: I believe there are a shitload of incarnations of Christianity, none of which agree with each other.
Quote: 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: 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:44 pm
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. That's one ******** up bible... But doesn't Catholicism have a specific interpretation of the bible that it adheres to?
Supposedly, and until recently it was pretty antisemitic.
Quote: Quote: Quote: So the Nazis weren't really Catholics. Well, most of them were baptized by the Catholic Church. A lot of atheists were also baptized.
Oh, by "Not Catholics" I thought you meant they were some other kind of Christian.
Most of them were theists, from what I can tell.
Quote: Quote: 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." This is true. But its not really Christianity to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus.
Yes, but many Christians believe the Jews are responsible for his death because the Pharisees asked the Romans to do it, which is in the Bible.
I know it's stupid, but that's why there are so many antisemitic Christians. And no, I have no idea why there are no Christians who hate Romans.
Quote: Quote: 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. They probably also killed atheists because they hated the communists. And atheism is pretty much the poster-religion of communism
I don't know, really. I imagine they would've killed atheists whether or not communism existed, though.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But all of them say certain things. Like that Jesus is the son of God.
Actually, not everyone agrees that that's what the Bible says.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/jesus-cannot-be-gods-son
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Good point. But its not exactly an empire is it?
Not many religions are.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. I see. So basically every scientific theory isn't atheist because not all atheists believe in every scientific theory?
No, I'm saying it doesn't say one way or the other.
Quote: Quote: 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. Wait, the Big Bang Theory is widely discredited? This is news to me.
No, the idea that the Big Bang "created everything" is widely discredited, or at least not suggested. There's no evidence one way or the other.
The Big Bang model does have a lot of evidence for it, though.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But they have someone to look up to.
Adult theists can look up to their parents, too, even when they're 40.
Quote: Quote: 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? I follow their advice. You could say a kid worships their parents if they beg for things like a new toy...
Eh...That's tenuous at best.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Atheists need someone to look up to? That's not logic. That's just a statement. Which makes sense. Why? Because atheists have nobody to look up to? Which makes them kinda sad.
Why?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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? Because they don't have anyone else to look up to. A religious person can usually just look up to God for the answers. Although considering "God" varies on what they're thinking at the time, they basically look up to themselves. An atheist makes their own decisions, but when (if) they feel overwhelmed by that they will want someone to look up to.
That's why we have things called "friends" and "self-help manuals".
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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? That since atheists don't convert to a religion, if they need a leader they'll convert to a cult of personality.
The study doesn't say anything about cult of personalities. You're speculating again, and really stretching it.
Quote: Quote: 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. OK, atheists cults of personality.
There's no such thing.
Quote: And there are also a lot more theists in the world than atheists. So it kinda makes sense that there are more theist dictatorships.
Not if you believe atheists are more prone to them than theists.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Because a theist society lets God make the decisions for them. An atheist society makes their own decisions, and when they're like "Gawd this is a lot've work" they look up to someone to make the decisions for them. But you have no evidence for that. Don't you think that perhaps in order to be atheist you have to at least be somewhat independent? Besides, most people in China were some kind of other theist before they were Maoist. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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.
It all depends on the level of enforcement. Some places in the world, it's also pretty clear what the religious laws are. In other places (Somalia comes to mind) the only law is the AK as far as anyone's concerned.
Quote: Quote: 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. The south tried to do that once...
So did Mao.
Quote: Quote: 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. But not in the afterlife according to you.
No, because I don't believe in the afterlife. So those threats don't work on me as well as they do on others.
Quote: Quote: 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"? I started using that term when you started saying that Mao's cult of personality was a religion. Spiritually atheist means atheist when it comes to afterlife and magic.
Maybe the term "supernaturally skeptical" or "incredulous" would be better. Atheism is a term pretty much reserved for the nonexistence of God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Oh, my bad. I think I get our misunderstanding. You believe Government isn't subjective for an entire society, not just a single person.
Well, yes and no. Again, societies are made up of single people. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:35 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. That's one ******** up bible... But doesn't Catholicism have a specific interpretation of the bible that it adheres to? Supposedly, and until recently it was pretty antisemitic.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: So the Nazis weren't really Catholics. Well, most of them were baptized by the Catholic Church. A lot of atheists were also baptized. Oh, by "Not Catholics" I thought you meant they were some other kind of Christian. Most of them were theists, from what I can tell.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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." This is true. But its not really Christianity to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. Yes, but many Christians believe the Jews are responsible for his death because the Pharisees asked the Romans to do it, which is in the Bible. I know it's stupid, but that's why there are so many antisemitic Christians. And no, I have no idea why there are no Christians who hate Romans.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. They probably also killed atheists because they hated the communists. And atheism is pretty much the poster-religion of communism I don't know, really. I imagine they would've killed atheists whether or not communism existed, though.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But all of them say certain things. Like that Jesus is the son of God. Actually, not everyone agrees that that's what the Bible says. http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/jesus-cannot-be-gods-son
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Good point. But its not exactly an empire is it? Not many religions are.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. I see. So basically every scientific theory isn't atheist because not all atheists believe in every scientific theory? No, I'm saying it doesn't say one way or the other.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Wait, the Big Bang Theory is widely discredited? This is news to me. No, the idea that the Big Bang "created everything" is widely discredited, or at least not suggested. There's no evidence one way or the other. The Big Bang model does have a lot of evidence for it, though.
Time still has a beginning.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But they have someone to look up to. Adult theists can look up to their parents, too, even when they're 40.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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? I follow their advice. You could say a kid worships their parents if they beg for things like a new toy... Eh...That's tenuous at best.
Not all religions support worship even.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Atheists need someone to look up to? That's not logic. That's just a statement. Which makes sense. Why? Because atheists have nobody to look up to? Which makes them kinda sad. Why?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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? Because they don't have anyone else to look up to. A religious person can usually just look up to God for the answers. Although considering "God" varies on what they're thinking at the time, they basically look up to themselves. An atheist makes their own decisions, but when (if) they feel overwhelmed by that they will want someone to look up to. That's why we have things called "friends" and "self-help manuals".
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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? That since atheists don't convert to a religion, if they need a leader they'll convert to a cult of personality. The study doesn't say anything about cult of personalities. You're speculating again, and really stretching it.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. OK, atheists cults of personality. There's no such thing.
Quote: Quote: And there are also a lot more theists in the world than atheists. So it kinda makes sense that there are more theist dictatorships. Not if you believe atheists are more prone to them than theists.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Because a theist society lets God make the decisions for them. An atheist society makes their own decisions, and when they're like "Gawd this is a lot've work" they look up to someone to make the decisions for them. But you have no evidence for that. Don't you think that perhaps in order to be atheist you have to at least be somewhat independent? Why should an atheist be more independent than a theist? Quote: Besides, most people in China were some kind of other theist before they were Maoist. But then Mao was like "Religion is bad shizz" and they worshiped him Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But religious laws aren't even enforced according to the person. They can make up whatever laws they want and say "Yo, this is what God believes". Legal laws at least have some places where its pretty obvious what they're saying.
It all depends on the level of enforcement. Some places in the world, it's also pretty clear what the religious laws are. In other places (Somalia comes to mind) the only law is the AK as far as anyone's concerned.I was talking about religious laws being enforced in the afterlife...
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. The south tried to do that once... So did Mao.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But not in the afterlife according to you. No, because I don't believe in the afterlife. So those threats don't work on me as well as they do on others.
Quote: Quote: Quote: 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"? I started using that term when you started saying that Mao's cult of personality was a religion. Spiritually atheist means atheist when it comes to afterlife and magic. Maybe the term "supernaturally skeptical" or "incredulous" would be better. Atheism is a term pretty much reserved for the nonexistence of God.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. Oh, my bad. I think I get our misunderstanding. You believe Government isn't subjective for an entire society, not just a single person. Well, yes and no. Again, societies are made up of single people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:20 pm
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Well, that's what you think. The Nazis had a different interpretation of the Bible. That's one ******** up bible... But doesn't Catholicism have a specific interpretation of the bible that it adheres to? Supposedly, and until recently it was pretty antisemitic. But it didn't say that Jews killed Jesus, did it?
Well, their interpretation did.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well, most of them were baptized by the Catholic Church. A lot of atheists were also baptized. Oh, by "Not Catholics" I thought you meant they were some other kind of Christian. Most of them were theists, from what I can tell. yeah, I mean they didn't follow the principles of catholicism, or believed in things that contradict Catholicism.
Like what?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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." This is true. But its not really Christianity to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. Yes, but many Christians believe the Jews are responsible for his death because the Pharisees asked the Romans to do it, which is in the Bible. I know it's stupid, but that's why there are so many antisemitic Christians. And no, I have no idea why there are no Christians who hate Romans. There aren't really many Romans around today, are there?
No, not really. And most of them are Catholic. blaugh
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But all of them say certain things. Like that Jesus is the son of God. Actually, not everyone agrees that that's what the Bible says. http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/jesus-cannot-be-gods-son They seem to base their assumptions more on the Qur'an than the bible...
Ok, then, how about Michael Servetus?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: *Shrugs* The point is it hasn't died, and its signature is its pacifism. Good point. But its not exactly an empire is it? Not many religions are. Christianity is. And a lot of religions once had an empire. Did Jainism ever have an empire?
Bihar...I dunno, I'm not an expert. I do know Jainism had a huge influence on Buddhism when it first came into being.
I'm not sure if imperialism should really be the goal with a religion.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Big Bang Theory =/= Lack of belief in a deity. They're not mutually exclusive, either. Wait, the Big Bang Theory is widely discredited? This is news to me. No, the idea that the Big Bang "created everything" is widely discredited, or at least not suggested. There's no evidence one way or the other. The Big Bang model does have a lot of evidence for it, though. Oh, so they think there was something before the Big Bang. That makes sense. Time still has a beginning.
Maybe. It's hard to find evidence for anything before the Big Bang. But the most plausible theory I've heard is that the universe goes through cycles of expanding and contracting.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Do you worship your parents? I follow their advice. You could say a kid worships their parents if they beg for things like a new toy... Eh...That's tenuous at best. But its still a religion Not all religions support worship even. Quote: Quote: Because atheists have nobody to look up to? Which makes them kinda sad. Why? Why not?
Because they have friends and stuff to keep them from not being sad. Plus, as we've already established, they're more independent than your average theist.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Yes, but why are they all going to want to start doing it just because they're atheist? Because they don't have anyone else to look up to. A religious person can usually just look up to God for the answers. Although considering "God" varies on what they're thinking at the time, they basically look up to themselves. An atheist makes their own decisions, but when (if) they feel overwhelmed by that they will want someone to look up to. That's why we have things called "friends" and "self-help manuals". But friends don't exactly say "Yo, if you do this people will like you and you'll be praised by everyone"
I don't know about you, but I don't really need anyone like that in my life.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: *Raises eyebrows* How so? That since atheists don't convert to a religion, if they need a leader they'll convert to a cult of personality. The study doesn't say anything about cult of personalities. You're speculating again, and really stretching it. But it does say that atheists don't convert to a religion. So what do they convert to? Assuming they need to something to look up to.
That's my point; why would they convert? Why do they need something to look up to? There's no reason to pin China's shift to Maoism on atheism.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. OK, atheists cults of personality. There's no such thing. I disagree. But even if you were right: spiritually atheist cults of personality
But then it's not evidence of an atheist society being more prone to a cult of personality than a theist society, because you're no longer talking about an atheist society.
Quote: Quote: Quote: And there are also a lot more theists in the world than atheists. So it kinda makes sense that there are more theist dictatorships. Not if you believe atheists are more prone to them than theists. Is the proportion even when you look at: atheists to theists and spiritually atheist cults of personality to spiritually theist cults of personality?
I don't know. It's hard to figure out how many atheists are in the world, not to mention all the cults of personalities.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Because a theist society lets God make the decisions for them. An atheist society makes their own decisions, and when they're like "Gawd this is a lot've work" they look up to someone to make the decisions for them. But you have no evidence for that. Don't you think that perhaps in order to be atheist you have to at least be somewhat independent? Why should an atheist be more independent than a theist?
Because you're not dependent on a god. You're independent.
Quote: Quote: Besides, most people in China were some kind of other theist before they were Maoist. But then Mao was like "Religion is bad shizz" and they worshiped him
Yup.
Just like how everyone was pagan until Jesus told Constantine, "Paganism is bad shizz" and everybody worshiped Jesus.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But religious laws aren't even enforced according to the person. They can make up whatever laws they want and say "Yo, this is what God believes". Legal laws at least have some places where its pretty obvious what they're saying. It all depends on the level of enforcement. Some places in the world, it's also pretty clear what the religious laws are. In other places (Somalia comes to mind) the only law is the AK as far as anyone's concerned.
Oh, well, yeah. Those are imaginary laws, so you can make up whatever you want about them.
It'd be like me saying that you'll be thrown in prison if you chew gum. I made up that law; it's not actually enforced, so the only reason you're going to follow it is if you believe me. If you chew chewing gum, no one is going to throw you in jail.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. The south tried to do that once... So did Mao. He had a lot more supporters than you would if you just said "Let's secede!"
Yup. He was a pretty charismatic guy, and it was a pretty harsh time in his nation's history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:44 pm
|
|
|
|
1st. Am I the only one worried about page stretching?Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Well, that's what you think. The Nazis had a different interpretation of the Bible. That's one ******** up bible... But doesn't Catholicism have a specific interpretation of the bible that it adheres to? Supposedly, and until recently it was pretty antisemitic. But it didn't say that Jews killed Jesus, did it? Well, their interpretation did.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Well, most of them were baptized by the Catholic Church. A lot of atheists were also baptized. Oh, by "Not Catholics" I thought you meant they were some other kind of Christian. Most of them were theists, from what I can tell. yeah, I mean they didn't follow the principles of catholicism, or believed in things that contradict Catholicism. Like what?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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." This is true. But its not really Christianity to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. Yes, but many Christians believe the Jews are responsible for his death because the Pharisees asked the Romans to do it, which is in the Bible. I know it's stupid, but that's why there are so many antisemitic Christians. And no, I have no idea why there are no Christians who hate Romans. There aren't really many Romans around today, are there? No, not really. And most of them are Catholic. blaugh
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But all of them say certain things. Like that Jesus is the son of God. Actually, not everyone agrees that that's what the Bible says. http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/jesus-cannot-be-gods-son They seem to base their assumptions more on the Qur'an than the bible...
Ok, then, how about Michael Servetus?Dunno. I haven't read enough about him to analyze what he's saying
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: *Shrugs* The point is it hasn't died, and its signature is its pacifism. Good point. But its not exactly an empire is it? Not many religions are. Christianity is. And a lot of religions once had an empire. Did Jainism ever have an empire? Bihar...I dunno, I'm not an expert. I do know Jainism had a huge influence on Buddhism when it first came into being.
Quote: I'm not sure if imperialism should really be the goal with a religion.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Big Bang Theory =/= Lack of belief in a deity. They're not mutually exclusive, either. Wait, the Big Bang Theory is widely discredited? This is news to me. No, the idea that the Big Bang "created everything" is widely discredited, or at least not suggested. There's no evidence one way or the other. The Big Bang model does have a lot of evidence for it, though. Oh, so they think there was something before the Big Bang. That makes sense. Time still has a beginning. Maybe. It's hard to find evidence for anything before the Big Bang. But the most plausible theory I've heard is that the universe goes through cycles of expanding and contracting.
EDIT: One of the laws of thermodynamics says: In a closed integral, a system cannot go back to its original form. This means that unless there's outside help it can't just keep going out and back forever.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Do you worship your parents? I follow their advice. You could say a kid worships their parents if they beg for things like a new toy... Eh...That's tenuous at best. But its still a religion Not all religions support worship even. Quote: Quote: Because atheists have nobody to look up to? Which makes them kinda sad. Why? Why not? Because they have friends and stuff to keep them from not being sad. Plus, as we've already established, they're more independent than your average theist.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Yes, but why are they all going to want to start doing it just because they're atheist? Because they don't have anyone else to look up to. A religious person can usually just look up to God for the answers. Although considering "God" varies on what they're thinking at the time, they basically look up to themselves. An atheist makes their own decisions, but when (if) they feel overwhelmed by that they will want someone to look up to. That's why we have things called "friends" and "self-help manuals". But friends don't exactly say "Yo, if you do this people will like you and you'll be praised by everyone" I don't know about you, but I don't really need anyone like that in my life.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: *Raises eyebrows* How so? That since atheists don't convert to a religion, if they need a leader they'll convert to a cult of personality. The study doesn't say anything about cult of personalities. You're speculating again, and really stretching it. But it does say that atheists don't convert to a religion. So what do they convert to? Assuming they need to something to look up to. That's my point; why would they convert? Why do they need something to look up to? There's no reason to pin China's shift to Maoism on atheism.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. OK, atheists cults of personality. There's no such thing. I disagree. But even if you were right: spiritually atheist cults of personality But then it's not evidence of an atheist society being more prone to a cult of personality than a theist society, because you're no longer talking about an atheist society.
Anyway, what my point is, is that its basically cause and effect. If atheism is the cause and a cult of personality if the effect (with some other causes too) than you can blame it on atheism.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: And there are also a lot more theists in the world than atheists. So it kinda makes sense that there are more theist dictatorships. Not if you believe atheists are more prone to them than theists. Is the proportion even when you look at: atheists to theists and spiritually atheist cults of personality to spiritually theist cults of personality? I don't know. It's hard to figure out how many atheists are in the world, not to mention all the cults of personalities.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Because a theist society lets God make the decisions for them. An atheist society makes their own decisions, and when they're like "Gawd this is a lot've work" they look up to someone to make the decisions for them. But you have no evidence for that. Don't you think that perhaps in order to be atheist you have to at least be somewhat independent? Why should an atheist be more independent than a theist? Because you're not dependent on a god. You're independent.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Besides, most people in China were some kind of other theist before they were Maoist. But then Mao was like "Religion is bad shizz" and they worshiped him Yup. Just like how everyone was pagan until Jesus told Constantine, "Paganism is bad shizz" and everybody worshiped Jesus.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. But religious laws aren't even enforced according to the person. They can make up whatever laws they want and say "Yo, this is what God believes". Legal laws at least have some places where its pretty obvious what they're saying. It all depends on the level of enforcement. Some places in the world, it's also pretty clear what the religious laws are. In other places (Somalia comes to mind) the only law is the AK as far as anyone's concerned. I was talking about religious laws being enforced in the afterlife...
Oh, well, yeah. Those are imaginary laws, so you can make up whatever you want about them.
It'd be like me saying that you'll be thrown in prison if you chew gum. I made up that law; it's not actually enforced, so the only reason you're going to follow it is if you believe me. If you chew chewing gum, no one is going to throw you in jail.If you've got a government behind you that might happen.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: 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. The south tried to do that once... So did Mao. He had a lot more supporters than you would if you just said "Let's secede!" Yup. He was a pretty charismatic guy, and it was a pretty harsh time in his nation's history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:12 pm
|
|
|
|
dl1371 1st. Am I the only one worried about page stretching?
Well, I've been deleting topics as they've been reconciled.
Quote: Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 That's one ******** up bible... But doesn't Catholicism have a specific interpretation of the bible that it adheres to? Supposedly, and until recently it was pretty antisemitic. But it didn't say that Jews killed Jesus, did it? Well, their interpretation did. They had one awful retarded interpretation.
No kidding. But it's not like they had the smartest source material, either.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: A lot of atheists were also baptized. Oh, by "Not Catholics" I thought you meant they were some other kind of Christian. Most of them were theists, from what I can tell. yeah, I mean they didn't follow the principles of catholicism, or believed in things that contradict Catholicism. Like what? Needless Genocide?
Again: There were quite a few members of the Catholic Church who advocated the Holocaust. And the Crusades were pretty much unanimous.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: This is true. But its not really Christianity to believe that the Jews killed Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus. Yes, but many Christians believe the Jews are responsible for his death because the Pharisees asked the Romans to do it, which is in the Bible. I know it's stupid, but that's why there are so many antisemitic Christians. And no, I have no idea why there are no Christians who hate Romans. There aren't really many Romans around today, are there? No, not really. And most of them are Catholic. blaugh Maybe they should kill themselves for killing Jesus?
xd :
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Christianity is. And a lot of religions once had an empire. Did Jainism ever have an empire? Bihar...I dunno, I'm not an expert. I do know Jainism had a huge influence on Buddhism when it first came into being. WOW. Its old. Quote: I'm not sure if imperialism should really be the goal with a religion. Quote: Quote: Quote: No, the idea that the Big Bang "created everything" is widely discredited, or at least not suggested. There's no evidence one way or the other. The Big Bang model does have a lot of evidence for it, though. Oh, so they think there was something before the Big Bang. That makes sense. Time still has a beginning. Maybe. It's hard to find evidence for anything before the Big Bang. But the most plausible theory I've heard is that the universe goes through cycles of expanding and contracting. Sounds awkward to me. How does it get the energy after one of those cycles? EDIT: One of the laws of thermodynamics says: In a closed integral, a system cannot go back to its original form. This means that unless there's outside help it can't just keep going out and back forever. Which law is that? The forces which made it contract are gravity, strong force, and weak force. You already see it in the creation of galaxies. The second law of thermodynamics only states that no net work can be done in a closed system. In the system I described, there is no net work. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Eh...That's tenuous at best. But its still a religion Not all religions support worship even. Why not? Because they have friends and stuff to keep them from not being sad. Plus, as we've already established, they're more independent than your average theist. We've established their less likely to convert to an organized religion. Presumably because they don't feel like they need to depend on it. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: That's why we have things called "friends" and "self-help manuals". But friends don't exactly say "Yo, if you do this people will like you and you'll be praised by everyone" I don't know about you, but I don't really need anyone like that in my life. Apparently religious people do? Exactly. Quote: Quote: Quote: I disagree. But even if you were right: spiritually atheist cults of personality But then it's not evidence of an atheist society being more prone to a cult of personality than a theist society, because you're no longer talking about an atheist society. yes you are, but that's for a later debate... Anyway, what my point is, is that its basically cause and effect. If atheism is the cause and a cult of personality if the effect (with some other causes too) than you can blame it on atheism. But atheism isn't a cause. There's absolutely no reason to believe that. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Not if you believe atheists are more prone to them than theists. Is the proportion even when you look at: atheists to theists and spiritually atheist cults of personality to spiritually theist cults of personality? I don't know. It's hard to figure out how many atheists are in the world, not to mention all the cults of personalities. I think about 2% of the world was atheist in 2005. But I'm not sure. As for cults of personality, I doubt there are many. Well, that's the number that admit to it, anyway. Atheists are also the most widely persecuted religious stance in the world. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But you have no evidence for that. Don't you think that perhaps in order to be atheist you have to at least be somewhat independent? Why should an atheist be more independent than a theist? Because you're not dependent on a god. You're independent. So lack of belief in a God, say you can't find enough evidence, suddenly makes you independent? Well, yes. Because you aren't dependent on a god. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But religious laws aren't even enforced according to the person. They can make up whatever laws they want and say "Yo, this is what God believes". Legal laws at least have some places where its pretty obvious what they're saying. It all depends on the level of enforcement. Some places in the world, it's also pretty clear what the religious laws are. In other places (Somalia comes to mind) the only law is the AK as far as anyone's concerned. I was talking about religious laws being enforced in the afterlife... Oh, well, yeah. Those are imaginary laws, so you can make up whatever you want about them. It'd be like me saying that you'll be thrown in prison if you chew gum. I made up that law; it's not actually enforced, so the only reason you're going to follow it is if you believe me. If you chew chewing gum, no one is going to throw you in jail. If you've got a government behind you that might happen.
If you have a god behind you then the heathens will actually go to hell.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: The south tried to do that once... So did Mao. He had a lot more supporters than you would if you just said "Let's secede!" Yup. He was a pretty charismatic guy, and it was a pretty harsh time in his nation's history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:56 am
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 1st. Am I the only one worried about page stretching? Well, I've been deleting topics as they've been reconciled.
Quote: Quote: Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Supposedly, and until recently it was pretty antisemitic. But it didn't say that Jews killed Jesus, did it? Well, their interpretation did. They had one awful retarded interpretation. No kidding. But it's not like they had the smartest source material, either.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Christianity is. And a lot of religions once had an empire. Did Jainism ever have an empire? Bihar...I dunno, I'm not an expert. I do know Jainism had a huge influence on Buddhism when it first came into being. WOW. Its old. Quote: I'm not sure if imperialism should really be the goal with a religion. Quote: Quote: Oh, so they think there was something before the Big Bang. That makes sense. Time still has a beginning. Maybe. It's hard to find evidence for anything before the Big Bang. But the most plausible theory I've heard is that the universe goes through cycles of expanding and contracting. Sounds awkward to me. How does it get the energy after one of those cycles? EDIT: One of the laws of thermodynamics says: In a closed integral, a system cannot go back to its original form. This means that unless there's outside help it can't just keep going out and back forever. Which law is that? The forces which made it contract are gravity, strong force, and weak force. You already see it in the creation of galaxies. The second law of thermodynamics only states that no net work can be done in a closed system. In the system I described, there is no net work. The "Entropy" entry on Wikipedia The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of any system cannot decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system cannot decrease. It follows that heat cannot flow from a colder body to a hotter body without the application of work (the imposition of order) to the colder body. Secondly, it is impossible for any device operating on a cycle to produce net work from a single temperature reservoir; the production of net work requires flow of heat from a hotter reservoir to a colder reservoir. As a result, there is no possibility of a "perpetual motion" system. Finally, it follows that a reduction in the increase of entropy in a specified process, such as a chemical reaction, means that it is energetically more efficient. What you're describing sounds like a perpetual motion system to me. Anyway, you never answered my other question, it must take a lot of energy to expand the universe, and then contract it. The reason most scientists think the universe is expanding is Dark Energy which has an anti-gravity pull. But it seems as if, given the rate of expansion of the universe, and the predicted ratios of dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter (75%, 20%, 5% respectively last time I checked), that the universe wouldn't be able to pull itself back together. Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But its still a religion Not all religions support worship even. Why not? Because they have friends and stuff to keep them from not being sad. Plus, as we've already established, they're more independent than your average theist. We've established their less likely to convert to an organized religion. Presumably because they don't feel like they need to depend on it. And I'm asking why. Several atheists have converted just because they don't logically see how a God could exist, thats probably the majority of conversions. Why would an atheist be independent because they can't see how a God could exist. I believe I already established what I thought about on why atheists are less likely to convert to organized religion... Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: But friends don't exactly say "Yo, if you do this people will like you and you'll be praised by everyone" I don't know about you, but I don't really need anyone like that in my life. Apparently religious people do? Exactly. See my post right above this debate. Why? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I disagree. But even if you were right: spiritually atheist cults of personality But then it's not evidence of an atheist society being more prone to a cult of personality than a theist society, because you're no longer talking about an atheist society. yes you are, but that's for a later debate... Anyway, what my point is, is that its basically cause and effect. If atheism is the cause and a cult of personality if the effect (with some other causes too) than you can blame it on atheism. But atheism isn't a cause. There's absolutely no reason to believe that. Here's how it works, what we're debating is if atheists are more independent than theists. If they aren't then this is true: 1. We have an atheist nation 2. The nation feels the need to look up to someone so they look up to their leader. 3. They start worshiping their leader like a God Who's fault is that. It is partially the leaders, but why did they start to look up to the leader? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Is the proportion even when you look at: atheists to theists and spiritually atheist cults of personality to spiritually theist cults of personality? I don't know. It's hard to figure out how many atheists are in the world, not to mention all the cults of personalities. I think about 2% of the world was atheist in 2005. But I'm not sure. As for cults of personality, I doubt there are many. Well, that's the number that admit to it, anyway. Atheists are also the most widely persecuted religious stance in the world. Good point. But there are still less atheists than religious people... Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Why should an atheist be more independent than a theist? Because you're not dependent on a god. You're independent. So lack of belief in a God, say you can't find enough evidence, suddenly makes you independent? Well, yes. Because you aren't dependent on a god. So because I don't believe in a God, I'm suddenly independent. Excuse me, but that doesn't make much sense, maybe you could explain it? Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: It all depends on the level of enforcement. Some places in the world, it's also pretty clear what the religious laws are. In other places (Somalia comes to mind) the only law is the AK as far as anyone's concerned. I was talking about religious laws being enforced in the afterlife... Oh, well, yeah. Those are imaginary laws, so you can make up whatever you want about them. It'd be like me saying that you'll be thrown in prison if you chew gum. I made up that law; it's not actually enforced, so the only reason you're going to follow it is if you believe me. If you chew chewing gum, no one is going to throw you in jail. If you've got a government behind you that might happen. If you have a god behind you then the heathens will actually go to hell. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
