Research on Belief in God

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 2, 2011
56
0
0
The sixth option is equally as foolish as two through four. It's untenably strong atheism. Just so you know. :)

Tank Engine said:
Tolerance is a word that has come up from time to time here, sometimes lauded sometimes in a negative light. What is tolerance? Allowing something to occur through indifference or apathy is not tolerance. Tolerance should be an active appreciation of the freedom of other individuals and promotion of this freedom. Such an understanding implies the limits on what we call "toleration". We should not "tolerate" actions which impede the freedom of others.

Au contraire, mon frère: tolerance, as per, you know, the dictionary, refers to the ability to endure. To be apathetic towards something is absolutely to tolerate it.
 
Sep 16, 2011
371
0
0
Echoes said:
Those who figure Religion is the cause of every war and ddeliberately ignore Stalin's crimes for example. :rolleyes:

If it was my opium I would know it. Lol I haven't even always been a Christian ...

Dogmatism is the enemy. Functionally there is no difference between Hitler slaughtering the Jews and a Muslim that engages in an honor killing. Whether one attributes the dogmatic behavior to religion or not, it's the exact same thing. The only difference is that people tend to be more generous with dogma in religious connotations.

Anyways, the problem with a thread like this for someone like myself is that there is simply not a "nice" way to tell a believer they have wasted their life. People fail to understand how rapidly religious institutions changed in the last century in order to survive the onslaught of modernity, and it will only take some more heavy lifting on their part to keep up with the times. Religious moderates (which would accurately describe the vast majority of believers on this forum, and the Western World for that matter) simply don't believe in God the same way 9/11 hijackers believed in God. There is faith, in the old world sense, which still exists, particularly in the Middle East; then there is the watered down faith that has emerged from the seemingly endless parade mental gymnastics people have applied to the bible to make it palatable. It's impossible to have a society while adhering to the barbaric practices of the Old Testament.

I like what Daniel Dennett once remarked about religion: at their best, they provide people with moral communities and are wonderful in its ability to humble an individual. However, religion is not the only show in town, and this is what irks me most as an unashamed atheist. That, and the arrogance on the part of believers who insist on injecting scripture with science. At best, the two can retain some dialog (Gould's NOMA stance is inadequate, IMHO). Science can predict and describe reality with a high degree of precision; what has theology ever contributed? Has it ever revealed anything as remotely as illuminating as the discovery of distant galaxies?

The only contribution, for me (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and others of my disposition agree too) has been the profound impact on art and literature. St. Matthews Passion, as Dawkins rightly points out, is a beautiful piece of music because of its religious convictions. I can't even imagine Western Literature without KJV.

I'm beginning to ramble, and I do apologize for telling someone they waste their time with faith, but that's how I ultimately feel. I will also go on record and say that I find religious ceremonies majestic, and I am extremely enthusiastic about Christmas, though in reality it is simply a Pagan celebration of Winter Solstice. :)
 
Kiara is a rational girl said:
Au contraire, mon frère: tolerance, as per, you know, the dictionary, refers to the ability to endure. To be apathetic towards something is absolutely to tolerate it.

If you are apathetic towards something, then I can't see that you are personally "enduring it". I was trying to convey what I thought tolerance is (or should be).

Also, people have slightly varying ways in which they use and understand words (especially abstract nouns, we're not talking about the scientific term tolerance here). A dictionary will by nature give succinct definitions (often giving close synonyms) that cannot always differentiate between subtle differences in the way words are used.
 
Kiara is a rational girl said:
The sixth option is equally as foolish as two through four. It's untenably strong atheism. Just so you know. :)



Au contraire, mon frère: tolerance, as per, you know, the dictionary, refers to the ability to endure. To be apathetic towards something is absolutely to tolerate it.

In my way of seeing things: tolerance means that my liberty stops, where my neighbor's begins (and, of course, vice versa).

This subtle and most difficult equilibium (that's apparently fragile, since history has demonstrated how frequenlty it has been ditched once pepotency gets the upper hand) means, precisely, that I have a right to exercise my liberty up to the point at which such application doesn't deny one from exercising his or hers. Tolerance, therefore, is about allowing self control and regulation to establish an appropriate measure of conduct: in short, to permit one to stay within certain limits.

But oh so how often has religion and politics - it's not surprising that Juan de Torquemada and Stalin made instruments of these respective institutions and ideologies to supress the liberty of entire categories - because they both laid claims to being guided by a higher Truth, which is unique and unconditional, been transformed into of the worst kinds of intolerence and incivility. The other aspect that unifies religion with political regimes, is that each expects, or rather demands, obedience and conformity, in the case of the former to a faith based creed, theological precepts, dogma. Not the most congenial attitudes in regards to promoting tolerance and individual liberty.

In any case this isn't proof of anything, nor is it about prooving something, but it merely demonstrates some of the most totalitarian and tyrannous aspects of such religious and political regimes that are simply historical facts.

Personally these historical facts, however, are enough to turn me off from such institutions, be they religious or political, because they don't seriously allow for something which I think is fundamental to liberty, civility and tolerance, since too much of it isn't congenial to the agenda and the very irrational basis upon which they have built their power and sway over the masses: doubt.

And herein lies where, as I see it, the people of faith and religion (just like in political regimes when fanatically guided by ideology) can't be as open and tolerant as those who are liberated by such constraints through doubt. Because someone who undoubtedly believes that God has revealed Himself and spoken to humanity through a sacred book, any number of them, written by who knows who one, two, three thousand years ago; when civilization and people's mindsets operated in vastly different ways than ours; is someone with whom it will be rather difficult, if not impossible, to establish an equitable bounds of tolerance and respect.

Another aspect of tolerance, therefore, is that it must be of an equal measure between the antagonistic factions, though between the religious one and the secular one this has patently not been the case, either throughout history, or indeed in the present day. For if a secular person atempts to freely expess his ideas in ways that can't be limited to showing "respect" for someone's religious beliefs (and one knows how easily those of faith get offended), there is often trouble. This is clearly the case in what I make notice of below. By contrast, a religious person, even in our lay society, is given free range and, at the same time, generally expects that whenever the subject of his faith is approached there will be limits placed upon what may be, and how it is to be, discussed. In short there is to be a level of censorship to which the layman is constrained, but not the person of religion when talking about God, faith, his beliefs, the Holy Writ and so forth.

This seems to me to have been announced even here, about how this thread was going to be monitored; and we were even warned that if certain limits of decorum were breeched, then it would be closed.

I have no problem with respecting certain limits and maintaining decorum, as is evident by my idea of tolerance above; however, this doesn't mean censorship, as it so often has among the religious institutions. There is also an issue of who gets to decide what, and based upon which criteria, such limits and decorum will be based. And here the religious have never been the most unbaised or open-minded, in short tolerant, evaluators of the citeria.

The Enlightment and Age of Reason philosophies have tought us that in this regard a secular judgment is infinitely more fair and just, and more tolerant, so it's up to the religious to accept the limits of their liberty in a pluralistic and democatic society that is no longer stacked in its favor. In God We Trust may have been useful in creating social cohesion 250 years ago in the constitutional sense, today it irradiates an aura of undemocratic pastoral hegmony.

At any rate, I had originally posted this in the politcal thread thinking that it would conger discussion, but I was mistaken. So I place it here in reference to what I said above regarding a very real problem with modern Western society: namely, what should be the boundaries of a freedom of expression that, today, has to contend with a certain religious fundamentalism (and not only Islamic, for we read about, for example, some Catholic knights in France who want to take the Roman Church back to the Middle Ages and the Crusades):

Given the frightful prospect of a war with Iran, which Amstehammer so appropriately brought up (and, by the way, there was similar news reported in yesterday's la Repubblica), under the undisclosed and behind the scences plans of Israel, the US and Britian: there was an issue raised in France the other day regarding the satyrical daily Charlie Hebdo's offices being set on fire by some Islamic fundamentalists, because it had (though only in the spirit of satire) portrayed the Prophet in an unflattering light. While Le Monde gave a severe front page editorial about it, at least in Italy it was secondary news.

Yet these are the same Islamic radicals who murdered Theo Van Gogh, who are the same who condemned Salman Rushdie to death, the same who knifed the latter's Italian translator and the same who assassinated his Japanese one.

Now I could have put this in the God and Religion thread, but since it also has to do with a Western crisis of democracy and freedom to express ideas (even controversial ones that might offend part of the community), given that several of the French and Italian newspapers condemned, not the heinous act of religious violence, but the temerity and irresponsibilty of Charlie Hebdo to have joked with religion, I place it here in the political thread.

While others in Europe's press have defined as absurd the Tunisian decision to not air that masterpiece of secular tolerance realized in the annimated film based on the Iranian exile in Paris Marjane Satrapi's brilliant Persepolis. There seems, therefore, to be a problem of certainty here.

If we are that uncertain and so unprepared when we are dealing with defending the right to freedom of speach and expression and in promoting tolerance, we shouldn't be surprised, then, if the intolerent and the zealous have free reign to commit their atrocious acts of barbary against our democracy. Its always the "vileness" of the pacificists, though, who give (unmerited) space to the fanatics.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
I am thinking that Dan Brown 5$ pocket edition book is somehow some of you guys way of describing today Church. It is very popular these days to claim such a conspiracy theory towards Roman Church IMHO.;)

Fellas IMHO it is important to make a clear distinction between Church as institution and religion. Islam, Hindusim (which is IMHO Brits term invention), etc. has it.
There is no supreme byrocrat power or Church as we know, and religion is totaly different in way of living it.

It is not strange to modern western people to think at that way, even Mother Teresa if you read hers letters, had strugle in her faith and love, even her.
So why you think that you are somehow special?
 
oldborn said:
I am thinking that Dan Brown 5$ pocket edition book is somehow some of you guys way of describing today Church. It is very popular these days to claim such a conspiracy theory towards Roman Church IMHO.;)

Fellas IMHO it is important to make a clear distinction between Church as institution and religion. Islam, Hindusim (which is IMHO Brits term invention), etc. has it.
There is no supreme byrocrat power or Church as we know, and religion is totaly different in way of living it.

It is not strange to modern western people to think at that way, even Mother Teresa if you read hers letters, had strugle in her faith and love, even her.
So why you think that you are somehow special?

Never read him, nor would I.

Now you're starting to come accross as a bit far-fetched, which is lethal to one's arguments.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
rhubroma said:
Never read him, nor would I.

Now you're starting to come accross as a bit far-fetched, which is lethal to one's arguments.

Nah, comrade rhubroma;)
They tried to make me go to rehab, I said, "No, no, no"

And thread title is "God on Trial", and want from me some evidences that gonna make you beleive, nah.
Keep looking comrade, keep looking;), you are Infidel dude but that does not stop you making some pretty weak arguments against something that you do not even beleive, why do you care?
Socialist/communist/humanistic tool is to blunt for religion, I mean if you want evidence be lawyer:eek:

Go in Peace comrade:)
 
oldborn said:
Nah, comrade rhubroma;)
They tried to make me go to rehab, I said, "No, no, no"

And thread title is "God on Trial", and want from me some evidences that gonna make you beleive, nah.
Keep looking comrade, keep looking;), you are Infidel dude but that does not stop you making some pretty weak arguments against something that you do not even beleive, why do you care?
Socialist/communist/humanistic tool is to blunt for religion, I mean if you want evidence be lawyer:eek:

Go in Peace comrade:)

The problem with your analysis, is that I don't need to make weak arguments to prove something, for which there are no proofs. Therefore, nobody is puting God on trial here. That's just the obsession of a certain some.

I have, however, presented some verifiable historical evidence, but only about evidence which is historically verifiable.

Everything else is mere speculation.

Cheers
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
rhubroma said:
The problem with your analysis, is that I don't need to make weak arguments to prove something, for which there are no proofs. Therefore, nobody is puting God on trial here. That's just the obsession of a certain some.

I have, however, presented some verifiable historical evidence, but only about evidence which is historically verifiable.

Everything else is mere speculation.

Cheers

Nah, If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!

Please let me speculate about religion.;)
 
oldborn said:
I am thinking that Dan Brown 5$ pocket edition book is somehow some of you guys way of describing today Church. It is very popular these days to claim such a conspiracy theory towards Roman Church IMHO.;)

Fellas IMHO it is important to make a clear distinction between Church as institution and religion. Islam, Hindusim (which is IMHO Brits term invention), etc. has it.
There is no supreme byrocrat power or Church as we know, and religion is totaly different in way of living it.

It is not strange to modern western people to think at that way, even Mother Teresa if you read hers letters, had strugle in her faith and love, even her.
So why you think that you are somehow special?

I did read the first Dan Brown book. It was an entertaining read, but by the time I got half way through it, the whole premise seemed very sensationalist. I won't be reading him again.

Certainly, one should distinguish between the institution and the individuals. I have a lot of respect for many religious people (I guess mostly Christian as that is the culture I grew up in, e.g. Mother Teresa, Dietrich Bonhoeffer). It seems one thing that does link those people was that they did doubt.

Having said that, I live in a country (Ireland) where the institutional church is still very powerful (though that power is weakening). They way in which certain matters of economic and sexual exploitation within religious have been swept under the carpet by the religious hierarchy and the government has been frightening. Over 90% of the schools here are Catholic (I'm not saying that such schools shouldn't exist, but there is virtually no choice and as the Jesuits said "Give me a child until they're seven ....").

I don't think that Rhubroma (or I) think that we are special in being atheists. Maybe it's his academic style, since he is a specialist in the history of culture. I would probably sound patronising if I started talking about my academic speciality (well more than I do normally anyway :D). It's a choice that we've made out of the options available to us, just like many others have chosen a particular religion. That choice doesn't free us from making moral choices and is (from our point of view) more honest than struggling to believe something that we just can't.
 
rhubroma said:
In my way of seeing things: tolerance means that my liberty stops, where my neighbor's begins (and, of course, vice versa).

Seems to fit in well with my understanding (maybe the flip side of the coin as I said tolerance should end when others' freedom is limited). I'll think and read more about the current issues you raised.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Tank Engine said:
I did read the first Dan Brown book. It was an entertaining read, but by the time I got half way through it, the whole premise seemed very sensationalist. I won't be reading him again.

Certainly, one should distinguish between the institution and the individuals. I have a lot of respect for many religious people (I guess mostly Christian as that is the culture I grew up in, e.g. Mother Teresa, Dietrich Bonhoeffer). It seems one thing that does link those people was that they did doubt.

Having said that, I live in a country (Ireland) where the institutional church is still very powerful (though that power is weakening). They way in which certain matters of economic and sexual exploitation within religious have been swept under the carpet by the religious hierarchy and the government has been frightening. Over 90% of the schools here are Catholic (I'm not saying that such schools shouldn't exist, but there is virtually no choice and as the Jesuits said "Give me a child until they're seven ....").

I don't think that Rhubroma (or I) think that we are special in being atheists. Maybe it's his academic style, since he is a specialist in the history of culture. I would probably sound patronising if I started talking about my academic speciality (well more than I do normally anyway :D). It's a choice that we've made out of the options available to us, just like many others have chosen a particular religion. That choice doesn't free us from making moral choices and is (from our point of view) more honest than struggling to believe something that we just can't.

No, no, no you did not understand me, which is not hard:eek:
I did not say that infidels are somehow special, I said that doubt, constant questioning, suspicious are not so special and everyone had it.

I am not a man who will say: 'Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls in front of pigs, or they may trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces...

As for comrade rhubroma, he has Inner Battle issue to not belive and finding all sort of arguments to keep himself out of trouble:D

All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?

P.S. In my country Catholic priest, doctor and teacher are still three key figures in some small villages, so I am aware of Ireland;)
 
oldborn said:
No, no, no you did not understand me, which is not hard:eek:
I did not say that infidels are somehow special, I said that doubt, constant questioning, suspicious are not so special and everyone had it.

Aaah.. I see. I don't see myself as a doubter, so probably that was where the misunderstanding came from. That doesn't mean that I am sure of everything, I know there are boundaries to my knowledge and understanding, but I've made a choice that I feel comfortable with.

Edit: The word infidel has very negative connotations, e.g. dehumanising so that you can justify a crusade against them, just so you know.


oldborn said:
P.S. In my country Catholic priest, doctor and teacher are still three key figures in some small villages, so I am aware of Ireland

I believe I lived in that country for quite a while (but in a city), although I had some experience of rural life there
 
oldborn said:
...

As for comrade rhubroma, he has Inner Battle issue to not belive and finding all sort of arguments to keep himself out of trouble:D

That's because I was never an affection seeker, unlike my bother, who always sought the love and approval of my parents. I hope I won't have to explain what I mean by the term. At mealtimes my brother was always silent and never dared to ask a question; I constantly asked questions and was repremanded by my parents for asking the most impossible questions. My mother would beat me with a raw hide which she always kept in readiness, and my father would box my ears, especially when he was on a drinking binge. I had many whippings, but I cannot remember my brother being whipped or having his ears boxed. I was interested in anything that was different, but my bother was not. I wanted to know everything - no question must remain unanswered.

It was at this time that I developed my distaste for ignorance and intolerance and set upon the pursuit of consciousness through a careful study and examination of the written sources and travel. We have to get out of our native environment, I thought, if we are to make ourselves useful in this brief life. My parents thus didn't bring me up, they dragged me up, until the age of eight or nine and Uncle Michael, who had moved to the south of France to, in his own words, leave the barbarians behind, had to step in and gradually undo the almost total havoc they had wrought. He went to immense pains to turn my totally chaotic mind into one that was acceptable and receptive. My parents believed that they were bringing me up, but they actually destroyed me, just as they destroyed my brother, who became just like them. Instead of talking about bringing me up, they should have talked about bringing me down with their Catholic and republican methods. Thanks to their upbringing, which was purely and simply a process of destruction, as I have said, everything in my mind was mutilated beyond recognition, to borrow a phrase that is usually used in a different context. In their brutal conservative Catholic and republican way they had stirred things around in my young mind and created total confusion, so that it took Uncle Michael just as long to raise order out of my mental chaos. Instead of educating us, our parents actually mutilated our minds. Being Catholics of Irish and Italian descent first and foremost and then secondly conservative republicans, they ruined our minds with their appalling Catholic and republican methods. Until Uncle Michael came in to rescue me.

But since this is a thread about religion, not politics, I will only relate what Uncle Michael said about how the Catholic Church can do unimaginable harm to a child's mind if the parents are Catholic and adhere more or less automatically to the Catholic religion, but I have found this to be the case with religion in general. To say that we had a Catholic upbringing, so spoke Uncle Michael, amounts to saying that we were utterly destroyed. Catholicism is the supreme annihilator of the child's soul, he said, the supreme inspirer of terror, the supreme destroyer of character. That's the truth, he said. Untold millions owe it to the Catholic Church that they have been destroyed, that their lives have been ruined, their nature denaturized, he said. The Catholic Church has the destruction of the human personality on its conscience - that's the truth, he said. For the Catholic Church won't tolerate any human being other than the Catholic human being. As children we always delighted in Catholic ritual, which at first seemed like a fairy tale, undoubtedly the most beautiful one we knew. And for the grown-ups it was a life-long spectacle, the only one they knew. But the fairy tail and the spectacle have between them perverted and destroyed all that's natural in human beings, so said Uncle Michael. Using the fairy tale for children and the spectacle for adults, the Catholic Church pursues a single aim, the total seduction of all who fall into its clutches. It uses the fairy tale and the spectacle, which is what we call its culture, to bend them to its will, to extinguish them as human beings, to turn them into unthinking Catholics who have no will of their own and whom insolently call themselves the faithful.

Naturally Uncle Michael was exaggerating, but it was just his manner of going to extremes in ways that vivify our sense of human possibilities, however destructive, that began to liberate me from the chaos and foolery. Finally, and this was his most bald way of explaining things, Uncle Michael thought that the Catholic faith, like all faiths, was a perversion of nature, a sickness to which millions succumb quite deliberately because it's their only salvation, the salvation of the weak, who are quite incapable of independent thought and, having no minds of their own, need a higher mind to do their thinking for them. And the Catholic mind, he thought, like all religious mindsets, has a terrible way of thinking, wholely self-serving and inimical to human nature, conducive to its own ends and its own glory.

It is a supreme stroke of iony, then, that these days I'm presently engaged in doing a massive research project at, above all places, the Biblioteca Vaticana, to attempt to explain how the visual imagery changed between XIV and XVI century Rome to build a new identity and ideology of the papal aristocracy and the consequences that this had for transforming Rome and Europe at the time, when one thinks of the protestant reform.

In Italy there is a very real problem of how the Catholic Church has entered in to the Italian political scene. Nothing has been changed by the various political turnarounds since the Lateran Pact of 1929, and of recent years: in Italy the Catholic mind does all the thinking and, because it can harness a significant voter support, even the socialists allow the Catholic mind to do their thinking for them, as they haven't developed a socialist mind. Basically the Catholic Church in this country can do whatever it wants and isn't even taxed by the state for the billions and billions it earns, just in Italy alone, anually. Everywhere we're confronted by the Catholic spirit, which admittedly has given us hundreds of thousands of Catholic works of art but destroyed the spirit of freedom and independence, the only natural spirit. What use are all these works of art, these Catholic churches and palaces, when for centuries we've had no minds of our own? Once my Italian friend Marco, who has a most distincitive intellect, and for whom I have thus always harbored the highest regard and admiration, patently stated that our nation suffers from chronic mental debility, he told me, which the Church has exploited more than any other European country, even more than in Ireland, where a degree of intellectual freedom and self-sufficiency still survives. In our country, Marco said, the Catholic Church has never had any difficulty in bringing the necessary pressure to bear and forcing the Italian people, and hence the Italian state, into total submission. Only in recent decades, with things like the divorce and abortion referendums, have there been hints of emancipation from Catholic dominion, from the monstrous pressure of the Church, from the age-old stranglehold of Catholicism, Marco told me. Only recently, he said, has it become possible to discern, here and there, the tentative emergence of a kind of thinking and philosopizing that owes nothing to Catholicism. Only in recent decades have a few Italian minds begun to think independently, to use their Italian heads, not just their Catholic heads. Catholicism is to blame that for so many centuries Italy had no philosophers, no philosophical thought, no philosophy, Marco told me. It's fair to say, he said, that since the Ancient Roman Empire for the last thousand years and five hundred more all thought has been ruthlessly suppressed by the Catholic Church. And the nation has made life easy for itself under the aegis of the Catholic mind, said Marco, which has always done its thinking for it, on a proxy basis and in its own way. In the last thousand years Catholicism, the signorie and, lastly, the fascists, have had a devestating effect, a lethal effect, on the nation's spirit, as all the evidence shows, he said. In the last thousand years, on can say, Catholicism extirpated thought and ushered in an efflorescence of art. The mind having been suppressed for centuries, Italy became a land of art. Having become a thoroughly mindless people during the centuries of Catholicism, Marco told me, we have allowed art to flourish. True, this has given us Masaccio, Donatello, Brunelleschi, Piero della Francesca, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Bramante, Parmigianino, Giorgione, Titian, Caravaggio and Bernini, yet Marco could not applaud the fact that we have, he said, a Leonardo but have lost our minds, that we have Michelangelo but have forgotten how to think and given up trying, that we have Bernini but have become more or less brainless. No other country, Marco told me, has allowed the Catholic Church to rob it so unscrupulously of the faculty of thought, no other country allowed itself to be decapitated, as it were, by Catholicism. We have no Montaigne, no Descartes, no Voltaire, he said, only monkish and aristocatic poetasters like Aquinas and Petrarch with their Catholic inanites. In recent years, Marco told me, we've seen the beginnings of change, but it will take centuries, not just decades, to repair the intellectual depredations of Catholicism. If they can be repaired, he said. Our nation has allowed itself to be exploited, Marco said, more than any other by the Catholic Church. For over a thousand years!
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Dude are you trying to kill me or what, I mean 1629 words for non native english speaker and on the 1/3 of the text I forgot what I was trying to say or why I am here at first place:D

Beside that joke, thanks for it I got your point comrade! I got the point.
Cheers!



P.S. Tank Engine, infidel i use as literally "one without faith", no other thoughts. Sorry if inappropriate.
 
Jun 9, 2011
177
0
0
oldborn said:
Dude are you trying to kill me or what, I mean 1629 words for non native english speaker and on the 1/3 of the text I forgot what I was trying to say or why I am here at first place:D

Beside that joke, thanks for it I got your point comrade! I got the point.
Cheers!



P.S. Tank Engine, infidel i use as literally "one without faith", no other thoughts. Sorry if inappropriate.

Yeah, and when you use the word 'comrade' you just mean 'friend', right? :rolleyes:
 
Jun 9, 2011
177
0
0
oldborn said:
No I mean left-wing oriented friend.

Well I guess that shuts me up! :eek:

By the way, isn't your avatar Donald Sutherland in the final scene of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1978 version)? A great, creepy film!!
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Rouetheday said:
Well I guess that shuts me up! :eek:

By the way, isn't your avatar Donald Sutherland in the final scene of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1978 version)? A great, creepy film!!

Thanks for that info, I just checked it is:D Never watch it anyway.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
The Hitch said:
The problem is, at least in the world I live in, we cannot argue with a Muslim that their religion influences people like Bin Laden. All they have to do is deny it. And we get mocked for claiming that we know more about Islam than the Muslim. Typical atheist arrogance. To think that we can argue with someone about their own religion.

The Muslim, so human logic goes, will always know more than a non Muslim about his religion. Same for all other religions.

The funny thing is if Bin Laden did the things he did now, but 1400 years ago he'd be worshiped today by millions of people as a prophet. Ignorant hypocrites, that's what they are. And South Park, Family Guy or American dad would have to live on without making Bin Laden jokes(because if you make jokes about the prophet Mohammed some crazy dudes will blow up some people :rolleyes:). Can you imagine? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LHDvHjC7Yc

It's something that annoys me actually. It's bad to worship Hitler for example, but there's tons of people worshiping Gaius Iulius Caesar. I don't know the % of Jews killed by Hitler, but Caesar killed off 25% of the population in Gaul(and decimated his own armies if they committed mutiny).

Though I don't agree with your last sentence. There was this Jew(forgot his name) that said that only people who experienced the Holocaust should be able to write about it(like him). But he got heavily criticized for this by pretty much every influential historian. Don't see why it would be any different than with Islam. Sure, there's some idiots out there, but not everyone.
 
oldborn said:
Dude are you trying to kill me or what, I mean 1629 words for non native english speaker and on the 1/3 of the text I forgot what I was trying to say or why I am here at first place:D

Beside that joke, thanks for it I got your point comrade! I got the point.
Cheers!



P.S. Tank Engine, infidel i use as literally "one without faith", no other thoughts. Sorry if inappropriate.

Nope, I was trying to kill myself, through a radical process of annihilating my existence in the so called conventional world. If there was a point, then, to me this basically means extinguishing the past in the sense of catharsis, to usher forth the new, through a constant probing of our environment and our culture: in short to live a critical life, the only life that's worth living.

And to avoid getting bogged down in the morass of life, the art we need is the art of bearing the unbearable.

For many their solution to this art dilemma, which is the problem of my existence and its extinction, has been religion and the religious institutions, though these have never been my answer.