Research on Belief in God

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ChewbaccaD said:
Also, nice way to avoid the truth of the statement that preceded that one...I would have avoided it too if I had no counter to it.
um... ok? If you want me to go through the history of lets say the modern bible, or the quran. Or point out to obvious ludacris claims about physics, or blatant historical inaccurasies in both books, I would be more than happy to do so.

My point was simply that it seemed that you did not have much faith in the current judeochristian beliefs either (?)
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Vino attacks everyone said:
um... ok? If you want me to go through the history of lets say the modern bible, or the quran. Or point out to obvious ludacris claims about physics, or blatant historical inaccurasies in both books, I would be more than happy to do so.

My point was simply that it seemed that you did not have much faith in the current judeochristian beliefs either (?)
I don't. But my point had nothing to do with the history or content of religions.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Okay, one more post just because you need to know the world doesn't work like you think it does.

Have you ever spent time around people who torture animals to death? Because I have, and I can assure you that religion or lack-thereof is not the reason they do it.
Ok, 1 last shot at this, before bed time... :eek:

If we presume animal torture by some sadist *******s are inevitable, fine.
But you have to agree that killing animals for a religious purpose by a normal and decent man/woman, just because it has a religious ring to it, is... unecessary, yes?
 
Gentle(wo)men,

although this might be a debate about religion in the Cafe, lets keep the swearing and insults at other members to the barest minimum shall we..said amount being zilch

cheers
bison
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Vino attacks everyone said:
Ok, 1 last shot at this, before bed time... :eek:

If we presume animal torture by some sadist *******s are inevitable, fine.
But you have to agree that killing animals for a religious purpose by a normal and decent man/woman, just because it has a religious ring to it, is... unecessary, yes?
Dude, I don't have the answer for that question. (and by logic, unless there is a singular being or philosophy everyone agrees to, there is no objective answer to that question, only a subjective one) Would I do it? No. Do I think it's unnecessary? Yes. Do they think it's unnecessary? Evidently not. Do I do things they think are completely unnecessary and that the world would be better without? Yes. Would they think the same about you? Yes. Do you think they feel as vehement about their position regarding you and I as you do about them? (this can go on forever, and we can drag in an unlimited number of things to prove our points...which is why I say that two people arguing about the need for, existence of, idiocy of believeing, etc, etc, etc when it comes to whether or not there is a god is the most pointless conversation one can have.)

The reality is that when one thinks a conversation is pointless and dumb, one can only prove their dumbness by continuing to engage (I am speaking of me only, not you), so I'm going to quit being dumb.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Okay, one more post just because you need to know the world doesn't work like you think it does.

Have you ever spent time around people who torture animals to death? Because I have, and I can assure you that religion or lack-thereof is not the reason they do it.
And?

The fact that other people elsewhere torture animals justifies religious people doing it?

In this thread I am not talking about the other nutcases who hurt animals who imo should be shot.

I am talking about the cases I mentioned, where animals are hurt in the name of religion or as a concequence of religion.

Is religion responsible for their suffering. Well I don't know how much you want to twist the concept of responsibility but the very basic rule I will use is - would these animals suffer this unpleasant fate if not for religion.

Lets see. No festival of fireworks, no animals getting burnt by fireworks, or running away in panick onto motorways to get run over by lorries.

No belief that meat needs to be slaugtered without getting stunned, then loads of animals who die this way, die in more humane ways, ways that aren't condoned as cruel by scientists.

Yep, seems to me religion is responsible. The fact that someone somewhere else did something else, is irrelevant.

Once again, would you in any other case justify bad behaviour on the grounds that other people do it too so its ok?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
The Hitch said:
And?

The fact that other people elsewhere torture animals justifies religious people doing it?

In this thread I am not talking about the other nutcases who hurt animals who imo should be shot.

I am talking about the cases I mentioned, where animals are hurt in the name of religion or as a concequence of religion.

Is religion responsible for their suffering. Well I don't know how much you want to twist the concept of responsibility but the very basic rule I will use is - would these animals suffer this unpleasant fate if not for religion.

Lets see. No festival of fireworks, no animals getting burnt by fireworks, or running away in panick onto motorways to get run over by lorries.

No belief that meat needs to be slaugtered without getting stunned, then loads of animals who die this way, die in more humane ways, ways that aren't condoned as cruel by scientists.

Yep, seems to me religion is responsible. The fact that someone somewhere else did something else, is irrelevant.

Once again, would you in any other case justify bad behaviour on the grounds that other people do it too so its ok?
If you read my posts as "justifi[cation]," then you misread my posts. I'm not justifying anything.

Like I said, I regret already jumping in this thread because nobody is going to change anyone's mind about the subject of the thread which is "God and Religion" and not "Animal Rights."

I respect your intelligence. It really is rather pointless whether you respect mine because it doesn't change a thing about me.

Good luck with whatever it is you guys are doing here. Sorry I waded in.
 
Echoes said:
and in my humble opinion you should get down to earth, man.

People are religious because they believe in its set of values. Here on planet earth !!!

We don't care about the rest.

Always the same with those atheists. Belittling the believers because they're "softies" and "egocentric" blabla. As if they were social haha.
The set of values of pretty much all major religions are the same that atheists follow. You don't have to be religious to behave.
 
What??

Atheists believe in liberalism, unlimited pleasure hic et nunc, money (Mammon/Golden Calf) as a key to all pleasures, unlimited human rights (but no human duties, it's forbidden to forbid - Sixties rebellion), etc.

Religious people believe in social solidarity, belonging to a group, traditions, "Our Kingdom is not from this World", etc.

Beliefs influence values because a set of values is of necessity a matter of faith.

Atheism has been the driving forces behind all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half. That's a fact !
 
Echoes said:
What??

Atheists believe in liberalism, unlimited pleasure hic et nunc, money (Mammon/Golden Calf) as a key to all pleasures, unlimited human rights (but no human duties, it's forbidden to forbid - Sixties rebellion), etc.

Religious people believe in social solidarity, belonging to a group, traditions, "Our Kingdom is not from this World", etc.

Beliefs influence values because a set of values is of necessity a matter of faith.

Atheism has been the driving forces behind all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half. That's a fact !
that's bullsh!t and I'm shocked anyone would genuinely believe this.
First of all, atheists don't believe. This fact is the only thing they have in common. They don't follow a single doctrine, you can't talk about them as a group.

Atheists believe in liberalism? Some of them yes. Some not.
Atheists believe in "unlimited pleasure"? Some of them yes. Some not. Some religious people believe in that too, some others not. Don't forget there are many religions out there, with some different views about this.
Atheists believe in money about as much as every other human being of this age, religious people included.
Unlimited human rights but no human duties? what the hell does make you think that? :confused:

"Religious people believe in social solidarity, belonging to a group, traditions, "Our Kingdom is not from this World", etc. " all of this is shared with atheists, except for the last part, which is in fact redundant respect to the rest.

"Beliefs influence values because a set of values is of necessity a matter of faith. " Nope, a set of common values are necessary for any kind of society. Western countries' set of values are laical, but still a valid set of values, right?


Atheism has been the driving forces behind all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half? Trolling?
Can you list all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half? I'm curious what exactly of them do you blame on atheism. I start noting that the horrors of this last century have nothing to do with atheism and much to do with religion.
 
To me it's pretty simple:

Everybody should be free to believe what they believe. But they shouldn't use their beliefs as an "excuse" to harm others!

Basically, if someone believes that the World was created by a can-can dancing polar bear in a pink tutu. Well... fine.
If the same person claims that the polar bear tells him/her to attack people with an pickaxe. Not okay!
 
Eshnar said:
that's bullsh!t and I'm shocked anyone would genuinely believe this.
First of all, atheists don't believe. This fact is the only thing they have in common. They don't follow a single doctrine, you can't talk about them as a group.
Right what I said. They don't have any values. I don't talk about them as groups because they don't believe in groups. They want to atomize society. They want us to remain strictly invididuals with only our ego.

Eshnar said:
Atheists believe in "unlimited pleasure"? Some of them yes. Some not.
Then they are masochists !

Eshnar said:
Some religious people believe in that too, some others not. Don't forget there are many religions out there, with some different views about this.
Then they are not as religious as they claim they are.

Eshnar said:
Atheists believe in money about as much as every other human being of this age, religious people included.
There's no such thing as "religious people of this age." A religion remains the same through ages and never should adapt to this or that culture. These so-called religious people simply are not religious, though they think they are.

Eshnar said:
Unlimited human rights but no human duties? what the hell does make you think that? :confused:
It was one of the main slogans of May '68 in Paris. "It is forbidden to forbid."

Eshnar said:
"Beliefs influence values because a set of values is of necessity a matter of faith. " Nope, a set of common values are necessary for any kind of society. Western countries' set of values are laical, but still a valid set of values, right?
Secularism is a religious invention by Christ (for the Western World at least). A set of common values is indeed necessary for any kind of society, which is why in any kind of human society you have religiosity. All the tenets of Christianity, Islam, etc. are critically explanable. If you don't believe in this set of values, that makes you an atheist.

Eshnar said:
Atheism has been the driving forces behind all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half? Trolling?
Can you list all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half? I'm curious what exactly of them do you blame on atheism. I start noting that the horrors of this last century have nothing to do with atheism and much to do with religion.
Gotta love that reaction. Probably typical of atheists who think they are in the 'good' and do not want to see other people's opinion.

Atheist and anti-religious theories started with the French Enlightenment of the 18th century. The Enlightenment was the driving force behind Child Labour, free-market and the horrors of the French Revolution. Atheists would massacre the Catholic Vendeans in atrocious conditions. The Napoleonic wars were based on atheism and anti-religiosity, Buonaparte being an atheist himself.

The advent of communism is obviously based on atheism, so was Fascism (since you are Italian, I won't have to teach you that Mussolini was an atheist), so was the Cristeros War, and to some extent the Vietnam War ...
 
None of those conflicts were religious. Communism for example was predominantly atheist, but none of the purges and wars it spawned were done in the name of atheism. That's like saying the Nazis fought for vegetarianism and animal rights.
 
Echoes said:
Right what I said. They don't have any values. I don't talk about them as groups because they don't believe in groups. They want to atomize society. They want us to remain strictly invididuals with only our ego.
they have values. They don't believe in God. I'm an atheist but I feel Italian and I belong to this group of people that share a common tradition. How does that involve religion at all.
Echoes said:
Then they are masochists !
probably. so what?
Echoes said:
Then they are not as religious as they claim they are.
Are you confusing "religious" with "Christians" or other main religions? Because as I said, there are religion that teach that, even though admittedly minor.
Echoes said:
There's no such thing as "religious people of this age." A religion remains the same through ages and never should adapt to this or that culture. These so-called religious people simply are not religious, though they think they are.
Human beings of this age I said. Not religious. Religious people indeed should not change their view. And their view about money (for Christianity, for istance, was always the same in the centuries: take as much money as you can. (and as an Italian I can guarantee you that, for the Catholic church)
Echoes said:
It was one of the main slogans of May '68 in Paris. "It is forbidden to forbid."
yeah, some atheists. Some. A group limited in place and time.
Echoes said:
Secularism is a religious invention by Christ (for the Western World at least). A set of common values is indeed necessary for any kind of society, which is why in any kind of human society you have religiosity. All the tenets of Christianity, Islam, etc. are critically explanable. If you don't believe in this set of values, that makes you an atheist.
you don't have religiosity in any society. If you don't believe in those values, you can't belong to a society. Religion is irrelevant.


Echoes said:
Gotta love that reaction. Probably typical of atheists who think they are in the 'good' and do not want to see other people's opinion.

Atheist and anti-religious theories started with the French Enlightenment of the 18th century. The Enlightenment was the driving force behind Child Labour, free-market and the horrors of the French Revolution. Atheists would massacre the Catholic Vendeans in atrocious conditions. The Napoleonic wars were based on atheism and anti-religiosity, Buonaparte being an atheist himself.

The advent of communism is obviously based on atheism, so was Fascism (since you are Italian, I won't have to teach you that Mussolini was an atheist), so was the Cristeros War, and to some extent the Vietnam War ...
Vandeans were massacred before the enlightenment too iirc. EDIT: mmm maybe not.
Nazists were Christians and discouraged atheism. All the issues now in place in the middle east are due to religions.

edit: Nazis were not only Catholic. Protestants too.
 
The issue of Nazism and Christianity is more complicated than that, actually. The leading Nazis were against Christianity, but they reckoned their position wasn't strong enough to antagonize Christians too openly at the time, so they had to tolerate it and dealing with it was seen as a long-term plan.

The USSR under Stalin was similar in many ways with regards to religion.
 
Echoes said:
Right what I said. They don't have any values. I don't talk about them as groups because they don't believe in groups. They want to atomize society. They want us to remain strictly invididuals with only our ego.

Then they are masochists !

Then they are not as religious as they claim they are.

There's no such thing as "religious people of this age." A religion remains the same through ages and never should adapt to this or that culture. These so-called religious people simply are not religious, though they think they are.

It was one of the main slogans of May '68 in Paris. "It is forbidden to forbid."

Secularism is a religious invention by Christ (for the Western World at least). A set of common values is indeed necessary for any kind of society, which is why in any kind of human society you have religiosity. All the tenets of Christianity, Islam, etc. are critically explanable. If you don't believe in this set of values, that makes you an atheist.

Gotta love that reaction. Probably typical of atheists who think they are in the 'good' and do not want to see other people's opinion.

Atheist and anti-religious theories started with the French Enlightenment of the 18th century. The Enlightenment was the driving force behind Child Labour, free-market and the horrors of the French Revolution. Atheists would massacre the Catholic Vendeans in atrocious conditions. The Napoleonic wars were based on atheism and anti-religiosity, Buonaparte being an atheist himself.

The advent of communism is obviously based on atheism, so was Fascism (since you are Italian, I won't have to teach you that Mussolini was an atheist), so was the Cristeros War, and to some extent the Vietnam War ...
It is largely due to thinking like this that I am an atheist/ agnostic. The main theme of your posts is dedicated to judging those who don't share your beliefs, from my experience this is common to those who are "religious" despite the supposed underlying values of compassion, tolerance and inclusion.

It is absurd (and arrogant) to think that those who are "religious" have a monopoly on values, and that those who aren't religious (atheist/agnostic) cannot have and live the same values.

Adhering to a religious structure in no way inherently makes you a "better" person than someone who doesn't. There is also as much diversity in the way that "religious" people live their lives as there is among atheists/agnostics.
 
hrotha said:
The issue of Nazism and Christianity is more complicated than that, actually. The leading Nazis were against Christianity, but they reckoned their position wasn't strong enough to antagonize Christians too openly at the time, so they had to tolerate it and dealing with it was seen as a long-term plan.

The USSR under Stalin was similar in many ways with regards to religion.
meh. Certainly on the surface they did discourage atheism as "Godless communism". If they were planning to do othewise in the future I dunno, But it wouldn't surprise me ofc.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Echoes said:
Atheism has been the driving forces behind all the horrors of the past two centuries and a half. That's a fact !
No, that is not a fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

As an example of religious wars in the last 40 years, let alone the last 250 years:
- Nigerian Civil War (Islam v Christian): 1970-1973, 1-3 million killed
- Second Sudanese Civil War (Islam v Christian): 1983-2005, 1-2 million killed
- Lebanese Civil War (Islam [Shiite v Sunni] v Christian): 1975-1990, 130-250 thousand killed

Why do people like distorting "facts"?
 
RedheadDane said:
To me it's pretty simple:

Everybody should be free to believe what they believe. But they shouldn't use their beliefs as an "excuse" to harm others!

Basically, if someone believes that the World was created by a can-can dancing polar bear in a pink tutu. Well... fine.
If the same person claims that the polar bear tells him/her to attack people with an pickaxe. Not okay!
And yet this is what organized Religion has done since the dawn of man, or at least since the Crusades.
 
Echoes said:
Right what I said. They don't have any values. I don't talk about them as groups because they don't believe in groups. They want to atomize society. They want us to remain strictly invididuals with only our ego.



Then they are masochists !



Then they are not as religious as they claim they are.



There's no such thing as "religious people of this age." A religion remains the same through ages and never should adapt to this or that culture. These so-called religious people simply are not religious, though they think they are.



It was one of the main slogans of May '68 in Paris. "It is forbidden to forbid."



Secularism is a religious invention by Christ (for the Western World at least). A set of common values is indeed necessary for any kind of society, which is why in any kind of human society you have religiosity. All the tenets of Christianity, Islam, etc. are critically explanable. If you don't believe in this set of values, that makes you an atheist.



Gotta love that reaction. Probably typical of atheists who think they are in the 'good' and do not want to see other people's opinion.

Atheist and anti-religious theories started with the French Enlightenment of the 18th century. The Enlightenment was the driving force behind Child Labour, free-market and the horrors of the French Revolution. Atheists would massacre the Catholic Vendeans in atrocious conditions. The Napoleonic wars were based on atheism and anti-religiosity, Buonaparte being an atheist himself.

The advent of communism is obviously based on atheism, so was Fascism (since you are Italian, I won't have to teach you that Mussolini was an atheist), so was the Cristeros War, and to some extent the Vietnam War ...


Since the Enlightenment democracy and secularism have at least begun to liberate society from the tyranny and obscurantism that reigned over it for centuries; when the lay and ecclesiastical hierarchies had little trouble in exacting the necessary pressure to bear over the State and hence to bend the citizenry under their wills. Whether or not the original intentions were in any way comprehended, or are still being considered today is entirely another matter. The Enlightenment largely rested upon an ideal of toleration in both Lock's and Kant's senses, which exemplified the liberal project of a universal regime, based upon a belief that toleration would enable us to discover the best life for humankind. The problem, of course, is that rational inquiry in ethics does not yield consensus on the best life. It shows that the good life comes in many varieties.

To liberal thinkers it was also manifest that the imperfection of human reason underpinned the ideal of toleration as a means to consensus. For this reason you are incorrect in claiming that the Enlightenment was the driving force behind child labor, free market horrors and those of the French Revolution, but rather the basic negation of the principle of tolerance (and human rights) that was central to it. They were thus rather unfortunate outcomes of a rational humanism that became intensified under industrialization and exploited by ideologues backed by scientific management, within the late XVIII - early XIX century sociopolitical and capitalist spheres.

The rise of National Socialism and Stalinism had produced a sense of fragility of liberal civilization that persisted after the Nazi regime had been destroyed and Soviet power contained and ultimately extinguished. The question that troubled many then was how liberal values could have collapsed so precipitately and completely in much of Europe, while Communist regimes that claimed to embody Enlightenment values repressed freedom on an almost unprecedented scale. The intellectual roots of totalitarianism had to be revealed if the worst horrors of the XX century were not to be repeated.

Surly, however, neither an absence of religion, nor atheism were among them; for other non-liberal societies in which religious matters played a decisive role in the communities and the religious authorities held great influence over temporal matters, virile and ferocious forms of absolutism and repression existed (just mentioning the Crusades, the Inquisition, the fate of men like Giordano Bruno and the century of religious wars that preceded enlightenment, are enough to demonstrate this historical truth). Rather it was the sanctification of power, with all the pseudo-mythological propaganda of the nation and its people and cult of the leader, who is elevated to the status of a sacred icon, that generated the most criminal forms of XX century tyranny. These regimes of absolute control transferred a belief in a higher power from that of the religious institutions to the architecture of the state.

I’d say in either case a faith element accompanied by an institutionalized reliance upon dogma and ritual as a means of culling mass social obedience, with severe punishment dealt out by either clerisy or politburo against heretics or dissidents depending on how they're are viewed, are where these different regimes occupy the same Byzantine seat. To assert thus that only religion can instill "values" (whatever that might mean in the absolute sense, given their various cultural declinations throughout history), or that atheism is a prompt for totalitarianism is grossly false and misleading.
 
Hugh Januss said:
And yet this is what organized Religion has done since the dawn of man, or at least since the Crusades.
Eshnar said:
"since the dawn of man" was probably more correct than the latter.
The problem is that there are some people who'll use every excuse possible to hurt others. The my religions claims I must do this way has just been really convinient for a long time, mostly due to people not being able actually read and Thus learn that, No! My religion does not claim that I must do this.

Also, pretty sure there hasn't been organized Religion "since the dawn of man". Probably took a few thousand years for that to happen!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY