Religion rant on my blog

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Vinny N

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

What "THE CHURCH" says doesn't exactly make things so. If it is so powerful that its dictates can hold back humanity surely they can also make it such that no one has pre-marital sex, abortions, there are no wars, etc.

People ultimately do what they want. Sometimes they justify under a pretense of religious belief and sometimes they do not. Blaming religion or thinking that if religion were gone that we wouldn't have the same problems we do now is absurd.

::sigh::

He has a problem with Catholicism, but doesn't have the balls to outright say he doesn't like Catholicism. So he's masquerading his agenda behind hating all religions.

I have problems with all religions...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

Explain how the moral values of christianity are "outdated", and how do you know it was created by a group with an agenda?

On top of that, illustrate how ALL the religions you seem to be mocking are outdated, or created by groups with agendas. Have at it Mr. Theologist.

I am looking for viewpoints from other people, im not trying to convince anyone of anything or convert people into the "not knowing" category.

Attacking my charecter doesnt make religion any different.

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am looking for viewpoints from other people, im not trying to convince anyone of anything or convert people into the "not knowing" category.

Attacking my charecter doesnt make religion any different.

Then please note that a number of people have suggested that:

Attacking religion doesn't make the world or people any different.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mchammer
looks like this guy got pwned pretty bad.

we should have an oldsmoboat's law for stuff on myspace.

Since i got 2 serious replies from people, including your useless reply, and im having civil discussion with those people, i dont see how anyone got owned.

You've got plenty of serious replies in this thread. The problem is, you're "rant" isn't serious at all. All it is, is unsupported claims that you've failed to backup with evidence.

As per your OP, you've gotten replies that exactly fit into what you were looking for.

I have no problems with people that have legitimate qualms with religion, and backup their qualms with proof, or even qualify their opinions. What I do have problems with is all these people out there that hate religion simply because it's the "in" thing to do.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Banzai042

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

Explain how the moral values of christianity are "outdated", and how do you know it was created by a group with an agenda?

On top of that, illustrate how ALL the religions you seem to be mocking are outdated, or created by groups with agendas. Have at it Mr. Theologist.

I am looking for viewpoints from other people, im not trying to convince anyone of anything or convert people into the "not knowing" category.

Attacking my charecter doesnt make religion any different.

You have yet to attack any other religion besides Catholicism, and your comment of "the Church" directly relates to an attack on Catholicism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

erm...Thinking that there isn't a God doesn't constitute a lack of belief, just a lack of belief in god.

I know that. What led you to believe I didn't?

I'm sure that the absolute conviction that lies in both corners is able to "incite particular behaviors".

Any beliefs held with conviction by an atheist or a group of atheists are not instilled in them because of atheism. Any belief-set, however good or bad, which does not feature a belief in the existence of a god is an atheistic belief-set. You cannot point to a group of bad atheists and infer that they are bad because of their atheism. All atheism stipulates is that a person does NOT hold a particular belief, it does not stipulate that they hold any other beliefs necessarily.

As mentioned above people on both sides of the fence can exibit remarkably similar behavior. So it isn't a stretch to think that these trendencies may be independent of religious alignment.

I am not contesting that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BigJ

You're arguing semantics. Theists don't "believe there is a God." They just don't believe that there isn't a God. Two ways of saying the same thing.

Not at all. There is a very important difference between saying "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X." Atheism proper is characterised by the former, whereas only certain subsets of atheists are characterised by the latter.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I'm sure that the absolute conviction that lies in both corners is able to "incite particular behaviors".

Any beliefs held with conviction by an atheist or a group of atheists are not instilled in them because of atheism. Any belief-set, however good or bad, which does not feature a belief in the existence of a god is an atheistic belief-set. You cannot point to a group of bad atheists and infer that they are bad because of their atheism. All atheism stipulates is that a person does NOT hold a particular belief, it does not stipulate that they hold any other beliefs necessarily.

I could say the same thing about christians or religous people in general. (of which I am not one).

Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god. It is a subtle but important distinction. In order to have absolute certainty of the nonexistance of any God, you must have the same kind of conviction that fuels a religious person's belief in god. Neither position is really provable though they are remarkably similar in ways.

 

[DaiShan]

So you have a blog, but decided that you needed another outlet and chose ATOT?

 

[DaiShan]

Oh, and that has to be the most poorly supported and inarticulate argument that I've ever heard, well maybe not as bad as "freedom is just the mernaise on the sammich of life" <--- that was an actual rebuttal by my opponent in the double-octo round at the Harvard debate tournament. I try not to feed into stereotypes, but she was from an inner-city school in Detroit. How she made it that far in the tournament I will never know, but suffice it to say she was defeated handily heh. Other than that though yours takes the cake. In fact I'm hesitant to even call it an argument, it's more like a bunch of incoherent sentence fragments tied loosely together by your disdain for religion.

 

[kmrivers]

Originally posted by: classy
You know an atheist and a religous person are one in the same. The religous person's religion is founded in some book or belief. The atheist has a religion too. Its called anti-relgion. As a matter of fact an atheist is even more dogmatic than even the most religous zealout. Both push their religion to the fullest extent. One pushes his belief of a greater being and the atheist pushes his belief of no greater being. Each has their own god too. The religous person has Jesus, Allah, or Buddha. The atheist has his god too, himself. The religous zealot talks about the works of his god and atheist pushes his great works about what he has accomplished. So it would seem to me for an atheist to throw stones at religion, maybe they should put their own glass house up for sale first. Just a thought..........

Just wanted to clarify something. Buddha is not a god or a being to follow. He simply was the one who made up buddhism and spread. People do not worship him. So please do not lump him with God or Allah, because that is not where he belongs. Thanks.

 

[kmrivers]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Vinny N

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Well. It certainly is a "rant".

Religions have two components. Outer tradition which is constructed and developed by communities. And inner faith which is personal and tempered by one's thoughts and experiences.

Your rant is weak as an "argument" because you merely mock rituals from religious tradition and fail to acknowledge the meaning faith gives to people and the philanthropy that results from the meaning they find in their lives.

All of the things you note as being held back by religion are controversial in nature. Even if there were no religions there would still be moral dilemmas, new ideas or technology that people are inherently uncomfortable with. People can be frightened as is of the new possibilities in this world. Taking away religion isn't going to change that.

And you must be joking about the military. Self-preservation, greed, taking from others, keeping what is ours, spreading our ideals about government and economies, etc. I'm sure people could name many such reasons why so much is spent on the military. Those are why armies exist. You must be kidding yourself if you really believe it came down to religion.

Im not arguing against morals, im arguing against furthering humanity because THE CHURCH says so. You can have your own beliefs, but beliefs based on an old and obviously outdated system created by people with motives isn't the way to go.

What "THE CHURCH" says doesn't exactly make things so. If it is so powerful that its dictates can hold back humanity surely they can also make it such that no one has pre-marital sex, abortions, there are no wars, etc.

People ultimately do what they want. Sometimes they justify under a pretense of religious belief and sometimes they do not. Blaming religion or thinking that if religion were gone that we wouldn't have the same problems we do now is absurd.

::sigh::

He has a problem with Catholicism, but doesn't have the balls to outright say he doesn't like Catholicism. So he's masquerading his agenda behind hating all religions.

I have problems with all religions...

I would like to know what you think of Buddhism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I'm sure that the absolute conviction that lies in both corners is able to "incite particular behaviors".

Any beliefs held with conviction by an atheist or a group of atheists are not instilled in them because of atheism. Any belief-set, however good or bad, which does not feature a belief in the existence of a god is an atheistic belief-set. You cannot point to a group of bad atheists and infer that they are bad because of their atheism. All atheism stipulates is that a person does NOT hold a particular belief, it does not stipulate that they hold any other beliefs necessarily.

I could say the same thing about christians or religous people in general. (of which I am not one).

Not really. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism is the absence of a particular belief. It's a subtle but important difference.

Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god.

No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God.

It is a subtle but important distinction. In order to have absolute certainty of the nonexistance of any God, you must have the same kind of conviction that fuels a religious person's belief in god. Neither position is really provable though they are remarkably similar in ways.

Take your strawmen somewhere else.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Text

Id like to hear some other points of view that disagree with what ive posted. Or if anyone thinks im off base in my honest thoughts.

Humans are stupid, religion is just the first available tool of human stupidity. Don't blame religion for the woes of mankind, blame mankind.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I'm sure that the absolute conviction that lies in both corners is able to "incite particular behaviors".

Any beliefs held with conviction by an atheist or a group of atheists are not instilled in them because of atheism. Any belief-set, however good or bad, which does not feature a belief in the existence of a god is an atheistic belief-set. You cannot point to a group of bad atheists and infer that they are bad because of their atheism. All atheism stipulates is that a person does NOT hold a particular belief, it does not stipulate that they hold any other beliefs necessarily.

I could say the same thing about christians or religous people in general. (of which I am not one).

Not really. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism is the absence of a particular belief. It's a subtle but important difference.

Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god.

No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God.

It is a subtle but important distinction. In order to have absolute certainty of the nonexistance of any God, you must have the same kind of conviction that fuels a religious person's belief in god. Neither position is really provable though they are remarkably similar in ways.

Take your strawmen somewhere else.

It's actually not a strawman. Just like there are different types of theists, there are different type of atheists.

For example, on can say there are two types of theists, just like they can say there are two types of atheists. There are those that have a set of beliefs in a higher power, and there are those that actively believe in a higher power. Just like there are those that have no belief in a God(s), and those that actively deny the existence of God(s). In the latter for both atheists and theists, you typically have your extremists which SlitheryDee was referring to.

You cannot choose to apply this to only theists, or only atheists. What do you call an individual that actively denys the existence of God(s)? Are they not atheists? Some would argue that atheists or theists that don't firmly believe in the existence or non-existence, aren't theists or atheists, but agnostics. The only distinction would be that one believes stronger in one side than the other, but acknowledges the other possibility does exist, and then if you wanted to you could classify them in the theist/atheist camps.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I'm sure that the absolute conviction that lies in both corners is able to "incite particular behaviors".

Any beliefs held with conviction by an atheist or a group of atheists are not instilled in them because of atheism. Any belief-set, however good or bad, which does not feature a belief in the existence of a god is an atheistic belief-set. You cannot point to a group of bad atheists and infer that they are bad because of their atheism. All atheism stipulates is that a person does NOT hold a particular belief, it does not stipulate that they hold any other beliefs necessarily.

I could say the same thing about christians or religous people in general. (of which I am not one).

Not really. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism is the absence of a particular belief. It's a subtle but important difference.

Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god.

No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God.

It is a subtle but important distinction. In order to have absolute certainty of the nonexistance of any God, you must have the same kind of conviction that fuels a religious person's belief in god. Neither position is really provable though they are remarkably similar in ways.

Take your strawmen somewhere else.

No dude... sorry you're wrong... an Atheist is one who believes there is no higher being, a theist is one who believes in a higher being. If you're undecided then you're agnostic.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god.

Originally posted by: Garth
No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God.

You are one...right. If you don't affirmatively believe that there is no God then you are not an atheist. I suppose I could pull out a definition of the word atheist, but then I guess you'd say that's not how YOU define it. You have the right to believe whatever you want but if you want to debate with others you must have some agreed upon standards.

It is a subtle but important distinction. In order to have absolute certainty of the nonexistance of any God, you must have the same kind of conviction that fuels a religious person's belief in god. Neither position is really provable though they are remarkably similar in ways.

Take your strawmen somewhere else.
[/quote]

Strawmen? You're the one who has formed his own set of beliefs and decide to arbitrarily call that atheism. I am only operating on what I believe atheism to be. If you lay claim to the title as a refute to my argument, then you must adhere to the tenets of that belief-system, not simply say "I am one, so you're wrong". Take YOUR strawmen somewhere else.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I'm sure that the absolute conviction that lies in both corners is able to "incite particular behaviors".

Any beliefs held with conviction by an atheist or a group of atheists are not instilled in them because of atheism. Any belief-set, however good or bad, which does not feature a belief in the existence of a god is an atheistic belief-set. You cannot point to a group of bad atheists and infer that they are bad because of their atheism. All atheism stipulates is that a person does NOT hold a particular belief, it does not stipulate that they hold any other beliefs necessarily.

I could say the same thing about christians or religous people in general. (of which I am not one).

Not really. A religion is a set of beliefs. Atheism is the absence of a particular belief. It's a subtle but important difference.

Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god.

No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God.

It is a subtle but important distinction. In order to have absolute certainty of the nonexistance of any God, you must have the same kind of conviction that fuels a religious person's belief in god. Neither position is really provable though they are remarkably similar in ways.

Take your strawmen somewhere else.

No dude... sorry you're wrong...

Yeah, dude, sorry... you're simply ignorant.

an Atheist is one who believes there is no higher being, a theist is one who believes in a higher being. If you're undecided then you're agnostic.

I get so sick of explaining this. Oh well... once more, into the breech...

The dichotomies between theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are orthogonal, but they are dichotomies. Agnosticism isn't some kind of "middle ground" "between" theism and atheism. The theism/atheism dichotomy describes a person's position of belief with resepect to the proposition "God exists." The gnosticism/agnosticism describes a person's confidence or beliefs about his justification for his partiuclar stance within the theism/atheism dichotomy. There are agnostic theists, as well as there are agnostic atheists. There are yet gnostic theists, and even still gnostic atheists.

The problem here is that you, like many armchair philosophers, have fallen under the misconception that theism = belief in god, atheism = belief in no-god, and agnosticism = not sure either way. Such an arrangement is nice and tidy, it would seem, but it simply isn't consistent with the meanings of the terms involved, nor is it as descriptive.

The fact of the matter is that you either believe a god exists or you don't, and you can either believe that position to be rationally justified or not. Atheism proper is merely "not-theism," meaning anyone that does not believe in a god is an atheist whether they describe themselves thus or not. I, myself, am an agnostic atheist. I do not beleive a god exists, but I do not purport to know that no gods exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BigJ

It's actually not a strawman.

It actually is.

Just like there are different types of theists, there are different type of atheists.

I never said that there weren't, so what are you talking aboiut?

For example, on can say there are two types of theists, just like they can say there are two types of atheists. There are those that have a set of beliefs in a higher power, and there are those that actively believe in a higher power. Just like there are those that have no belief in a God(s), and those that actively deny the existence of God(s). In the latter for both atheists and theists, you typically have your extremists which SlitheryDee was referring to.

Again, I wonder if you really caught the gist of my posts, because nonthing I have said would indicate that I believed what you wrote just above to be false.

You cannot choose to apply this to only theists, or only atheists. What do you call an individual that actively denys the existence of God(s)? Are they not atheists? Some would argue that atheists or theists that don't firmly believe in the existence or non-existence, aren't theists or atheists, but agnostics. The only distinction would be that one believes stronger in one side than the other, but acknowledges the other possibility does exist, and then if you wanted to you could classify them in the theist/atheist camps.

I don't know who you're arguing against, because it certainly isn't me.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't know who you're arguing against, because it certainly isn't me.

The problem we're running into, is that the vast majority of people do not consider being agnostic, but favoring a side, to be part of theism or atheism at all. They consider it different versions of agnosticism.

You, however, do consider it to be part of theism/atheism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Atheism is not the simple subtraction of the belief in god, but the substitution of that belief for the belief that there is no god.

Originally posted by: Garth
No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God.

You are one...right. If you don't affirmatively believe that there is no God then you are not an atheist.

That is simply nonsense. See my explanation three posts up.

{snip>

Strawmen? You're the one who has formed his own set of beliefs and decide to arbitrarily call that atheism.

I don't believe a god exists. Therefore, I am not a theist. What is the word that stands for "not-a-theist"? "Atheist." I perplexes me that something so elementary could cause you such confusion. Do you have a learning disability, perchance?

I am only operating on what I believe atheism to be.

And I am educatiing you on what atheism really is.

If you lay claim to the title as a refute to my argument, then you must adhere to the tenets of that belief-system, not simply say "I am one, so you're wrong".

Atheism is not a "belief system." Atheism rather describes any belief-set that does not include a belief that a god exists.

Take YOUR strawmen somewhere else.

Obviously, you do not understand what a strawman is.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Strawmen? You're the one who has formed his own set of beliefs and decide to arbitrarily call that atheism.

I don't believe a god exists. Therefore, I am not a theist. What is the word that stands for "not-a-theist"? "Atheist." I perplexes me that something so elementary could cause you such confusion. Do you have a learning disability, perchance?

Like I said before, it depends on which camp you belong to. There are some camps that group agnosticism in with being varying degrees of atheism/theism, and there are certain camps that do not group it with them, and have it fall into agnosticism.

 

[zanieladie]

Forgive me for not really wanting to get into a discussion about religious views...

You asked in your original post whether anyone thinks you are off-base in your thoughts. To say you are "off-base" would imply that your opinions are wrong; however, I disagree with your blog points.

Enough said for now.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Garth
I don't know who you're arguing against, because it certainly isn't me.

The problem we're running into, is that the vast majority of people do not consider being agnostic, but favoring a side, to be part of theism or atheism at all. They consider it different versions of agnosticism.

You, however, do consider it to be part of theism/atheism.

I'm sorry, but you're really going to have to reiterate this post with an empahsis on coherency.

 

[LumbergTech]

i somewhat agree with your blog, but on the flipside scientists can lose their damn minds and turn into evil bastards so i dont trust them any more than i do the religious people..you have to be skeptical no matter what ideology you are looking at because while they may all have their benefits, they also have their flaws..

i dont think that its religion persay thats causing people to be screwed up, but it is the blatant disregard for what the truth really is , replaced with emotionally charged idiotic viewpoints that dont even begin to analyze the data..god may or may not exist, but that isnt an excuse to deny scientific research necessarily...there is a lot of nasty stuff that goes on in life and im not so sure that if there was a god that he or it or whatever you want to call it would be against stem cells etc..what about all the children that had to be left behind because the group would die if they had too many members?..think early times these people didnt have a choice to save their kids...to pretend like theres some imnipotent being who is frowning on every action which you see wrong is a pretty disturbing viewpoint to take on