What religion or belief system are you?

[Tory]

Ashaebi I have read many sources, and it appears, that China's crime is not high compaired to other countries in the current era.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

As we know, there have been dictators of religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs throughout history. And about its doesn't matter if one was responsible for millions of deaths over the other, it is terrible either way. I will side with you on this.

By the way, on the political and economic system discussion thread, you was using logic and sources towards your post. I wanted to defend you, but I am a person that believes in a small government and I will trigger the far-left. People in that topic was a little too harsh on you, they were really getting offended over tiny issues. Deck Knight delt with this in the past, it didn't matter how many times he debunk them, they still say his claims were invalid, and they had no evidence to back anything up. The main reason why I brought this up, I originally wanted to chat with you about the history of voting rights.

Surgo This is best information I could find. I don't see it being very atheist, unless you must be talking about the top leaders of the German Nazi Party. It is still unknown what Adolf Hitler's and Martin Bormann's belief system could of been.

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

Yes, specifically, authoritarian + nationalism what was very harmful. Japan is not controlled by authoritarians, but the nationalist country still has one of the lowest crime rates in world. (Not that I support these ideologies.)

About the response on Don Honchkrorleone. It is the most weirdest post I ever read on Smogon, but I sure did got a long laugh at it. First he says he doesn't need to say anything, and he said something. Second he uses misconceptions about ecomonic systems with wars. Third, rpg stats of attack and defence with religion. Fourth, pedophiles and zoophiles. Fifth, getting mixed up with ethnic groups and anthropology with religion. After this, it is just felt with irrelevant repetitive content. I'll pass.

 

[ChrystalFalchion]

I wasn't saying that people only follow god purely because they fear hell - I was saying that if god existed and he was indeed all knowing, in the case of Pascal's wager he would know that that was the only reason you were following his faith.

Anyway, back to the bible being a hateful book:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:3

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Exodus 22:18

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” 1 Peter 2:18

"Women shall be silent and submissive." 1 Corinthians 14:34

"Blows and wounds scrub away evil, and beating purge the inmost being." Proverbs 20:30

Also, the god of the bible flooded the entire earth and killed everyone apart from one family, when he could've simply snapped his fingers and removed our sins. We're talking about a being that can create entire worlds just by speaking, so I don't think it would be beyond him.

 

[Ashaebi]

Ashaebi I have read many sources, and it appears, that China's crime is not high compaired to other countries in the current era.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

As we know, there have been dictators of religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs throughout history. And about its doesn't matter if one was responsible for millions of deaths over the other, it is terrible either way. I will side with you on this.

By the way, on the political and economic system discussion thread, you was using logic and sources towards your post. I wanted to defend you, but I am a person that believes in a small government and I will trigger the far-left. People in that topic was a little too harsh on you, they were really getting offended over tiny issues. Deck Knight delt with this in the past, it didn't matter how many times he debunk them, they still say his claims were invalid, and they had no evidence to back anything up. The main reason why I brought this up, I originally wanted to chat with you about the history of voting rights.

Surgo This is best information I could find. I don't see it being very atheist, unless you must be talking about the top leaders of the German Nazi Party. It is still unknown what Adolf Hitler's and Martin Bormann's belief system could of been.

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

Yes, specifically, authoritarian + nationalism what was very harmful. Japan is not controlled by authoritarians, but the nationalist country still has one of the lowest crime rates in world. (Not that I support these ideologies.)

About the response on Don Honchkrorleone. It is the most weirdest post I ever read on Smogon, but I sure did got a long laugh at it. First he says he doesn't need to say anything, and he said something. Second he uses misconceptions about ecomonic systems with wars. Third, rpg stats of attack and defence with religion. Fourth, pedophiles and zoophiles. Fifth, getting mixed up with ethnic groups and anthropology with religion. After this, it is just felt with irrelevant repetitive content. I'll pass.

Conservative here too. Less government + individual responsibility = success!

 

[Asek]

cherrypicked quotes

the bible is a collection of stories by a large group of authors and for nearly all of the quotes you can find that come across as you would like to present it theres almost definitely another that contradicts it. it is at the end of the day a product of its time, which is at its newest probably around 1900 years old iirc. yeah you can point out these things but your really missing the forest for the trees when you do this i think, taking what you want out of it instead of trying to interpret the core lessons of the bible into a contemporary framework. i dont think the majority of contemporary practioners of christianity are really pointing to the bible to try justify slavery and make cases for the historical truth of noahs ark and the genesis creation myths..... lol.

for comparison, lots of older philsophers and political scientists that are hugely influential on modern thought were writing (often quite explictly) referring only to the priveledged group (more often than not white european men) as being of the only concern, with women and those from other continents being ignored at best and more often treated as subservient to this dominant group. reading these now we can and should critique these works and authors for these unacceptable viewpoints, but do you think we should discard the core ideas of these thinkers because of prevailing norms in their time as well?

 

[the pugilist]

it is at the end of the day a product of its time, which is at its newest probably around 1900 years old iirc.

the word of God is Timeless

 

[ChrystalFalchion]

the bible is a collection of stories by a large group of authors and for nearly all of the quotes you can find that come across as you would like to present it theres almost definitely another that contradicts it. it is at the end of the day a product of its time, which is at its newest probably around 1900 years old iirc. yeah you can point out these things but your really missing the forest for the trees when you do this i think, taking what you want out of it instead of trying to interpret the core lessons of the bible into a contemporary framework. i dont think the majority of contemporary practioners of christianity are really pointing to the bible to try justify slavery and make cases for the historical truth of noahs ark and the genesis creation myths..... lol.

for comparison, lots of older philsophers and political scientists that are hugely influential on modern thought were writing (often quite explictly) referring only to the priveledged group (more often than not white european men) as being of the only concern, with women and those from other continents being ignored at best and more often treated as subservient to this dominant group. reading these now we can and should critique these works and authors for these unacceptable viewpoints, but do you think we should discard the core ideas of these thinkers because of prevailing norms in their time as well?

Most modern Christians only follow the parts of the bible that line up with their own personal agendas.

 

[rau]

I wasn't saying that people only follow god purely because they fear hell - I was saying that if god existed and he was indeed all knowing, in the case of Pascal's wager he would know that that was the only reason you were following his faith.

Yes, He'd know. As well as he knows those with follow Him with love in their hearts.

Anyway, back to the bible being a hateful book:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12

"Women shall be silent and submissive." 1 Corinthians 14:34

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” Ephesians 5:22

Passages refer on the structure on the Christian household, specifically the role of woman on it (be respectful to man, the head of the family).

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:3

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” Exodus 22:18

In the Old Testament, God used his children, the Jews, to lay judgement on sinful tribes. Those that have sinned and refuse to repent have strayed away from God.

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” 1 Peter 2:18

Speaks of the virtue of respect to authority

"Blows and wounds scrub away evil, and beating purge the inmost being." Proverbs 20:30

Speaks of physically correcting [your children] and the benefits of it.

Also, the god of the bible flooded the entire earth and killed everyone apart from one family, when he could've simply snapped his fingers and removed our sins. We're talking about a being that can create entire worlds just by speaking, so I don't think it would be beyond him.

God created man with freedom of choice. Just disregarding our sins and taking away is making us mindless drones. All families except Noah's were devoid of love for God and were unwilling to refuse. God loves man, but despises sin, so he punished the men who stuck to their wickedness and had no desire to repent.

 

[ChrystalFalchion]

The choice of doing exactly what god wants or you burn in bell forever is no real choice at all - it's blackmail. Say someone was being mugged and refused to hand over their money, and the mugger killed them. In court, the jury then finds the mugger not guilty on account that the victim made the wrong choice. Would you consider that justice?

 

[Asek]

The choice of doing exactly what god wants or you burn in bell forever is no real choice at all - it's blackmail. Say someone was being mugged and refused to hand over their money, and the mugger killed them. In court, the jury then finds the mugger not guilty on account that the victim made the wrong choice. Would you consider that justice?

what the fuck are you talking about

 

[DurzaOffTopic]

I find this conversation pretty ironic, while I don't actually abide by pascal's wager and was only joking, ChrystalFalchion is actually being laughably hateful himself and is brutally and baselessly attacking something in probably the most disrespectful way possible. I don't really care what you believe, its all a personal decision, but ChrystalFalchion, you're looking extremely foolish by claiming moral high ground over the Bible and conducting yourself in this way.

I don't know if you notice, but the world we live in isn't a world where Christians attack non-religious people. Christians are persecuted all the time, being killed for their beliefs, but on a daily level they are harassed for believing what they do. Of course there are some strange outliers, but I'd go to say that your average Christian is a good person who hasn't "harassed" an atheist or agnostic in their life. Attempting to share their beliefs with somebody because they believe that that person will go to hell for eternity if they don't accept Jesus isn't harassment either, its quite the opposite, and again, its very easy to tell that person that you aren't interested, and I highly doubt they'll get angry and start attacking you.

There is no "hard evidence" that God exists, but at the same time, there is absolutely no evidence that God doesn't exist. I'm not saying that because I think that you should think anything is real because there isn't proof that it doesn't exist, but rather that you can examine things on your own and consider that there might just be a higher power and that things are not truly left to chance.

If God isn't real, I'd have no regrets about living my life as a Christian. I'm not a worse person because of it, rather when I'm being a dick or doing shitty things I feel like those are the times where I'm feeling farther away from my faith. Of course I struggle with my faith as many people do, but you can't take every wrong that a person of a religious system does and apply that to the entire religion, just like you can't take every bad thing that an atheist does and point it at atheism.

I pretty much agree with everything rau, Ashaebi, and Don Honchkrorleone have said so far and support their defenses of christianity.

special shoutout to fanyfan for being extremely respectful about his disagreeing opinion

 

[TMan87]

Another agnostic here, leaning on atheist. How original.

I used to be pretty critical towards religion, but after Don Honchkrorleone whooped my uncultured ass offered me an alternative point of view I just retreated into a more passive stance of "do whatever you want as long as you're not coercing me into doing something, or harming other people".
I don't really believe in an afterlife and if I'm actually greeted by St Peter/Heimdall/Mew/whoever reigns on the heavens after I die I'll just be like "oh, sorry for doubting you, I've tried to be a good guy during my life, can I get a pass anyway?".

One thing I am absolutely against though is religion in politics (and vice-versa). These two matters shouldn't interefere with each other in my eyes.

Please don't murder me thanks. why do I keep posting in these controversial threads

 

[ChrystalFalchion]

Long post

Yeah the argument of "you can't prove [blank] doesn't exist" is not a very good one. 2 reasons 1: the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim. The Christians / Muslims / Jews are the ones claiming there is a god, thus the burden of proof lies with them. 2: proving a negative is by nature impossible. Yes I might not be able to prove your god doesn't exist, but could you prove the Greek / Roman / Norse gods don't exist?

what the fuck are you talking about

Thought it was pretty obvious, but basically if you're presented with 2 choices where one is unimaginably horrible, then it's not really a decision you're free to make so much as blackmail.

At the end of the day I see no difference between the Abrahamic god, the Greek gods, the Roman gods or the Norse gods. They are all fabrications of primitive people to try to make sense of the world.

PS I'm sorry if I offended anyone, that really wasn't my intention.

 

[Don Honchkrorleone]

Yaaawn all ChrystalFalchon or whichever his name is did was cherrypick random, context-less Bible passages he found in Dawkins perhaps. Should've at least posted the rest of the passages. His generalization is truly disgusting and not worth my time, though but I have another fish to fry.

Before though, I shall introduce you to a man named Reinhart Koselleck, a German historian specialized in Conceptual History, that means, the History of words that guide certain thought. Concepts transform over time as circumstances make them change, molding a new worldview as well. As Asek rightfully pointed out, the men who wrote the books of the Bible, even with divine inspiration, are still written by men, and ALL men are products of their times, as is their words and what they mean. And the Bible as a whole is discursive, that means, it has an audience. An audience that had to understand the meaning of such word. When the Vulgata was made, words probably meant different things, based on Jerome's experiences and views of the concepts. And that's not even considering the factor of translation (read Cyril Aslanov's A Tradução como Manipulação [Translation as Manipulation], it's a great book and the author follows me in academia.edu!). Do you really believe that "submission" means the same thing in this after 1789 world than it meant for an apostle or someone who copied the apostle's texts in II A.D. in Roman provinces? If you do, then I press F. And why was it translated as "submission?" How was it in the Greek text? You need to be more scientific in your claims tbh, this makes me snore...

Thought it was pretty obvious, but basically if you're presented with 2 choices where one is unimaginably horrible, then it's not really a decision you're free to make so much as blackmail.

Satanism exists. And Augustine condems those that believe out of fear, as do several other Patristic authors and theologians. And I don't fear Hell. Next.

About the response on Don Honchkrorleone. It is the most weirdest post I ever read on Smogon, but I sure did got a long laugh at it.

Well I'm glad to know that my post affected you in a good way <3

First he says he doesn't need to say anything, and he said something.

Would you care to explain, or better, to quote me? I think I was quite clear in what I said...

Second he uses misconceptions about ecomonic systems with wars.

So enlighten me, please. Unlike some people here, I like to learn with my mistakes! In fact, I want to ask, do you see any correlation between economy and religion? This is a point I always like to hear what other people feel about and one that can be healthy and productive to this thread!

Third, rpg stats of attack and defence with religion.

You... you didn't get my Pokémon metaphor, did you? And what do you have to say about the passage in particular? You dismiss things only based on my rhetoric techniques? So you haven't read anything at all...

Fourth, pedophiles and zoophiles.

Again, explain. I used them as an example of, borrowing from Foucault's vocabulary, "positive power" expressed by your target. Or you honestly believe we wouldn't go for the moose butt if the Scriptures and theologians didn't forbade it? And that we wouldn't treat the ones that are different like shit if we always believed in nothing? In fact there is a really strong way to make this case against me using two paragraphs above, but I don't think you cared to read at all...

Fifth, getting mixed up with ethnic groups and anthropology with religion. After this, it is just felt with irrelevant repetitive content.

Again, please explain what you mean. What I understood by this claim of yours is that you can't explain customs by anthropology right? Only by religion? And what's your opinion on the interweaving of systems of belief and culture? Most of yours (and ChrystalFalchon's) argument seem to lie in that crucial point so, pretty please, I'd like to hear what you have to tell.

I'll pass.

I'm glad you admit defeat by remaining silent and not entering a field you clearly lack the viewing of Rick and Morty to argue, but I'm not satisfied as there are some points I don't understand so I'm challenging you to answer the points above. Come on, you can win this! I have faith on you! All I want is to have a fair debate in this thread, and have some misconceptions and prejudices broken so we can all convive in peace, believers (in whichever creed) and non-believers.

 

[Tory]

Don Honchkrorleone, the point that I am making is that I cannot take you seriously if your response to my post compares to pedophiles, zoophiles, cannibalism, necrophilia, incest, fictional storytelling, Alomomola in the RU tier and other things that are irrelevant to this topic. I believe you have been watching way too many deep web stories on YouTube.

 

[Celticpride]

Well it seems the vocal conservative catholic movement has done its job judging by this thread. They've sufficiently wiped away any notion of the faith having progressive or communist undertones. I'd encourage people who more or less stereotype Catholics to read about Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker Movement (Thomas Merton is a good shout too). Like any group there's good eggs and bad eggs.

 

[earl]

Don Honchkrorleone, the point that I am making is that I cannot take you seriously if your response to my post compares to pedophiles, zoophiles, cannibalism, necrophilia, incest, fictional storytelling, Alomomola in the RU tier and other things that are irrelevant to this topic. I believe you have been watching way too many deep web stories on YouTube.

The biggest brain play- Discrediting someone's entire argument based on the fact that they used a metaphor that was applicable, but according to you, a bit too lighthearted for the topic. Rock on dude, nice job being the bigger man

 

[Myzozoa]

http://reductress.com/post/neat-thi...g-socially-liberal-and-fiscally-conservative/

“I care a lot about the many social issues plaguing this country,” Jeremy said. “But I also care about making sure the government spends as little money as possible on doing anything to fix those issues.”

relevant

 

[Don Honchkrorleone]

Don Honchkrorleone, the point that I am making is that I cannot take you seriously if your response to my post compares to pedophiles, zoophiles, cannibalism, necrophilia, incest, fictional storytelling, Alomomola in the RU tier and other things that are irrelevant to this topic. I believe you have been watching way too many deep web stories on YouTube.

Hmm, I see your tactic is to belittle my rhetoric instead of my arguments, a poor albeit not uncommon ploy that somewhat shows you either have not understood what I meant (which I must apologize, I thought that writing in a format that everyone here would understand but there are some that don't get my metaphors...) or not read at all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the first one, and dissert about one, only one point that you and some others are trying to press in the most.

The choice of putting incest and zoophilia in my argument is not detracting, let alone irrelevant. In your words:

Women wouldn't be shamed for being promiscuous, having fun with multiple boyfriends, and being accused of a witch to be burned alive on woods. No anti-gay laws, people being executed for liking the same sex.

You can correct me if my line of thought is wrong, but I assume you're attacking the moralizing aspect of Abrahamic faith and its influence on behavior, especially concerning sexuality. That the Scriptures of said systems of belief condemn homosexuality is undeniable (although, as rightly points out Roger Chartier, practices are not irreducible to the discourses) and, as a human being born and raised in the XXth - XXIth, you believe in the opposite. However, I assume you also believe that zoophilia and incest are morally wrong. The Book of Leviticus, commonly attributed to Moses, chapter 18 says:

1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and said: 2 'Speak to the Israelites and say: "I am Yahweh your God: 3 You must not behave as they do in Egypt where you used to live; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you, nor must you follow their laws. 4 You must observe my customs and keep my laws, following them. "I, Yahweh, am your God: 5 hence you will keep my laws and my customs. Whoever complies with them will find life in them. "I am Yahweh. 6 "None of you will approach a woman who is closely related to him, to have intercourse with her. I am Yahweh. 7 "You will not have intercourse with your father or your mother. She is your mother -- you will not have intercourse with her. 8 "You will not have intercourse with your father's wife; it is your father's sexual prerogative. 9 "You will not have intercourse with your sister, whether she is your father's or your mother's daughter. Whether she was born in the same house or elsewhere, you will not have intercourse with her. 10 "You will not have intercourse with your son's or your daughter's daughter; for their sexual privacy is your own. 11 "You will not have intercourse with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father. She is your sister; you will not have intercourse with her. 12 "You will not have intercourse with your father's sister; for she is your father's own flesh and blood. 13 "You will not have intercourse with your mother's sister; for she is your mother's own flesh and blood. 14 "You will not have intercourse with your father's brother; you will not approach his wife. She is your aunt. 15 "You will not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; you will not have intercourse with her. 16 "You will not have intercourse with your brother's wife; it is your brother's sexual prerogative. 17 "You will not have intercourse with a woman and her daughter; nor will you take her son's or her daughter's daughter, to have intercourse with them. They are your own flesh and blood; it would be incest. 18 "You will not take a woman and her sister into your harem at the same time, to have intercourse with the latter while the former is still alive. 19 "You will not approach and have intercourse with a woman who is in a state of menstrual pollution. 20 "Furthermore, you will not have intercourse with your fellow-citizen's wife; you would become unclean by doing so. 21 "You will not allow any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am Yahweh. 22 "You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing. 23 "You will not have intercourse with any kind of animal; you would become unclean by doing so. Nor will a woman offer herself to an animal, to have intercourse with it. This would be a violation of nature. 24 "Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these practices, for it was by such things that the nations that I am driving out before you made themselves unclean.

I intentionally kept 18:22 as I cannot put Bible verses out of context. That would be very silly and unprofessional of my part. From 4 to 18, the passage is what we closely see as incest in our modern society, a practice that is still condemned by the bulk of our society. 23 is also closely related to another of our taboos, zoophilia. Now, do you think the modern society consider them wrong because of what? I'd bet that the tradition that considered that as being wrong has to do with the religious formation. Now, homosexuality is being, thankfully, unvilified in the course of the years, and some Christians (including myself and a slew of others that I know) do not condemn them anymore, applying our own critical exegesis to what the Bible had to say. In the future, it's very possible that, although very unlikely especially with zoophilia, such treatment might repeat with the aforementioned prohibitions, but people that will continue to be against will not necessarily use the Scriptures to discredit it, only the "ethic and moral", themselves based on a Christian conception of the world.

And this also shows why I tend to quote anthropologists and social scientists too much here and what my point really was. By analyzing 18:3 and 18:24, you can see clearly that those ws the practices of the others, thus creating a sense of alterity. Hebrews are not like the others. But were they before, or never were? Some researchers (including myself, but with some disagreements) believe that the moral conducts expressed in faith teachings are reinforced by these instead of being entirely created. I know I have to avoid metaphors, but I thik this one you can understand. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? By the same token, which came first, condemning homosexuality in a faith discourse or in a social discourse? Did the hebrews and greeks treated women badly because of their religion or they did that before and religion only explained that? Sometimes, the practices already exist, and a discourse has to be made to give the acts a logic and explanation to the people that they're aimed at. That's why I argue to what is the place of religion in the moralizing practices. I suggest reading the magnificent yet somewhat flawed work of Norbert Elias entitled The Civilizing Process, especially the part on its first volume that deals with behavioral conditioning of individual and society. Or you can be fully materialist and say that religion is a reflex of earthly practices, a Marxian approach agreed by most of the smart marxists ("What happens on Heaven is a mirror of Earth and vice-versa"), that still questions the absolute valor of a system of supernatural beliefs in a society. So I ask, what that is part of what you believe is positvely debitary of the religious system that based your symbolic system? And what isn't?

To fonish, I bolded one point of your argument as I still don't know what it's talking about. What did I make up? I seriously want a clarification. I'm willing to engage in this maieutic as much as possible and I hope that so you are, and I think you can reorganize your ideas and, instead of bashing my rhetoric, actually read what I have been saying and come up with argumentation. I'm just a left-wing Presbyterian, it's not that hard to find flaws in my reasoning! And I'm not even talking from a Christian place, but from a historian specialized in Religion, so it's even easier! If not, well, you really need to watch more Rick and Morty.

 

[sandshrewz]

I don't wanna join in the convo on all the schematics and what not behind beliefs etc. But would just like to say that I don't have anything against religion, rather the people who misuse/misinterpret/skew/whatever religions that seriously irks me. Too many examples of such things happening it's sad. Similar to TMan87, I agree that politics/governments should have nothing to do with religion. That also comes from me living in a multi-racial/cultural/religious society.

For this thread: This is a Pokemon online forum. Be nice to one another. All the calling out and irrational posting is disappointing. There have been some polite posts here and there, please follow them. Okays cheers~

 

[Doctor_DraX]

I'm an atheist just as much as I am an apinkunicornist.

My belief system:

 

[Aurella]

I was getting ready to sleep but oh boy... Here comes long blabbering...




By the same logic pedophiles and zoophiles shouldn't be ashamed for going for that underage/animal pussy. And let's not even talk about incest, this stupid taboo forbidden by the Scriptures (I know the main target here is Christianity, so let's just keep these. Have more examples if you want from other places with different creeds!).

You're really going to compare an adult female's right to sexual autonomy to animal sexual abuse and underage rape, that's wild. I can't even begin to count the amount of times Christians I've spoken to compared being gay (especially in vocations like teaching or being a scoutmaster) or being transgender as an affront of equal value to rape and bestiality..... the way you used it in this instance is certainly a new one....

While much of your post aimed to challenge the argument of "no religion, no more x problem", it certainly didn't seem willing to confess that religion has instigated much of those conflicts on its own (like discrimination), even if those conflicts exist universally. It reads overly apologetic by bringing up "random Africa tribe" or "village people hated lesbians too!" -- and for that, I'm less than appreciative of your post, though my mind would have been changed if you had discussed how you feel Religion while contributing at times to said social issues, has also improved lives and healed communities in other ways, or even mentioned the lost value to the world by the theoretical absence of all faith & religion. Instead of basically saying "THEY DID IT TOO!"

 

[Don Honchkrorleone]

Glad someone answered and critiqued me in a rational manner and actually reading what I had to say! If only who I addressed did that instead of shielding oneself in the way I explain stuff...

You're really going to compare an adult female's right to sexual autonomy to ANIMAL AND UNDERAGE RAPE, that's wild. I can't even begin to count the amount of times Christians I've spoken to compared being gay (especially in vocations like teaching or being a scoutmaster) or being transgender as an affront of equal value as to rape/bestiality..... the way you used it in this instance is certainly a new one....

On the particular context that I was forced to give that statement, yes, although I'm not comparing. The passage I opposed was that religion, no, Abrahamic faiths (because if one of the "religion = misogyny" crowd knew about Slavic faiths this argument would never exist) are the responsible for the mistreatment of women and trans people and, ergo, a utopic world without any kind of religion or deep belief in a supernatural. My specific point is, would it fucking really be that way? Is it true that no deity or at least minimal equals no hierarchy based on genre? And also, as I pointed out in my last post here, the target of my argument is clearly saying that faith (again, specifically Abrahamic ones) is wrong because he has diverging points between him and the main dogma. Except for the fact that what he believes to immoral also happens to be indebted from the same set of beliefs that formed the society he is part of. Being a dick to a group is not exclusivity of religion, unless my target can prove me that it is, albeit anthropology keep saying otherwise. It's likely that God made West avoid fucking animals (but as for if during the Bible time they did that before the union or never did that is another question, actually my main one, as is how much He is responsible for that), and this was secularized and imprnted into our ethics (and hopefully will ever be). Homosexuality and Transsexuality (and most of the alphabet soup spectrum except for asexuality, but that is a very heavy matter for another post) had a different path and today we, as humans, and with some exception believing OR NOT in any sort of parthenon, are either tolerant or accepting of this conduct. Abrahamic faith has, yes, some responsibility, but it's not all, and this generalism is what I fight against. Yet, due to my rhetoric I can understand why you inferred in that particular way, so I apologize and thank that you pointed out that fault of mine.

While much of your post aimed to challenge the argument of "no religion, no more x problem", it certainly didn't seem willing to admit that religion has instigated much of those conflicts on its own (like discrimination), even if those conflicts exist universally. It reads overly apologetic by bringing up "random Africa tribe" or "village people hated lesbians too!" -- and for that, I'm less than appreciative of your post, though my mind would be changed if you had discussed how you feel Religion while contributing at times to said social issues, has also improved lives and healed communities in other ways. Instead of basically saying "THEY DID IT TOO!"

Mea Culpa, in part. The whole point of that post, aside from showing how stupid the talk that Brazil and Africa are fucked because "lol we dare to believe" (I'm fucking sorry but that was a really, REALLY fucking moronic thing, and on the eve of historian's day it felt a lot more insulting to me), was to deny the argument that religion and religious beliefs are the basis of all evil as it was argued. But re-reading it and after your input, I agree that I may sound overly defensive and that I may be shielding a system of beliefs of any kind of blame. And as I said somewhere else here, the practices are not irreducible to the discourse. Taking into account what should be morally wrong in the societies, I can give you the example you want and a counter-example that shows the other side, and from my very own country! Although some think that we're screwed because some of us dare to be anachronistic and thus ruin our own lives, an evangelical priestess made the heartwarming decision of donating a large amount of money to fix an Afro-Brazilian temple that was criminally set on fire. According to her (who, for anyone wondering, also defended the decriminalization of abortion here. so much for a "backwards" person imo), it was the Christian thing to do, as Christianity is nothing other than loving everyone regardless of any alterity and helping the ones in need. And this sense of solidarity in our society is clearly indebted of being instructed into the Abrahamic dogma. This is the good side of the Christianity that can be paralleled with the solidarity that Jews have with each other, and don't even get me started on the hospitality from Buddhism and Islamism! On the other hand, we have, besides the reason of the event that was above, the very sad episode when a neo-pentecostal televangelist kicked a Catholic saint in his program. And to be really topical, the far right is ascending here at an alarming pace, and the main discourse targeted mostly (but not only) to the more radical branch of Protestantism is one that distorts Christianity, transforming it in hate mostly by quoting Bible verses and theologians randomly and without their context or assuming a messianic posture. What is opium and pot sometimes, may turn into a very damaging crack stone and meth.

I'd like to hammer it again, as it was one of my points in my post before this. his, again, has to do with my previous response that was misinterpreted. The practices are not irreducible to the discourse, hence why I assume the blame in part and still stand with my initial position. What is the place of religion in an act done, presumably, in the name of religion? Is the faith the basis or just the methodology? Is religion the material or the tool? I don't know the answer in most of the times. Some pogroms and Jonestown are clear examples of those extremes, but is a terrorist screaming "Allahu Akbar" before an attempt really moved by Islamism or using Islamism? We don't have enough PP from HM05 remove this fog and generalization (either "Islamism is a religion of evil and misery" à la Dawkins or "They're all fucking demonic atheists doing that to remove God from the minds of men" à la Daciolo) is poisonous for any kind of moral understanding and dialogue of the secularized society and those who opted to maintain the beliefs of their ancestors. My "apologetic" examples exist for those reasons, as I said in a post above. This is why I'm still wasting my time here posting these giant posts and probably will keep on doing so until enlightenment is reached or I get bored. Not to likewhore (or else I'd post in tour forums), but to promote a rational and peaceful dialogue. Hopefully, I'm not missing Alice Through the Looking-Glass in vain.

 

[EV]

I don't know if you notice, but the world we live in isn't a world where Christians attack non-religious people.

Please, elaborate.

 

[DurzaOffTopic]

Please, elaborate.

I don't exactly know what you want me to say about this, but I'll try my best to answer this. Christians aren't going around attacking people for not believing; you can't attack a "lack of beliefs" and if by some means some "christian" did so that would be completely contradictory to the Christian values which that person says they represent (?). Christians are killed for their beliefs in many countries (not by atheists by any means, just to clarify), and my point there was that Christians are generally good people and they don't do harass people as a direct result of disagreement in their beliefs, and some argument saying that the Bible makes people hateful or harassing in any way just isn't true. However, there are many atheists and non-religious people who persecute and harass Christians for their faith and actively work against Christians. Again, this definitely isn't everybody and I want to make this clear, but the amount of times Christians are directly harassed or "made fun of" (for lack of a less childish phrase) for their faith, or more commonly in their values, is infinitely more than any sort of Christian who would harass people for their lack of belief.

However, I'd imagine there is some sort of social judgement among many Christian communities about the actions of people who are not religious and I could bet you that some of that is judgement rather than contrasting the values but thats significantly more indirect and the biggest issue with Christian judgement is actually with Christians looking down on other Christians (from personal experience this can be super common and pretty sad).

I definitely don't want to come across that "christians are better people than non-religious people" because thats laughable in the fact that its contrary to the entire Christian philosophy of everybody being sinners and that we need a savior in Jesus Christ. Christians just try to be the best they can just like any other good conscioused individual but acknowledge that they are indeed not perfect.

 

[Blazade]

I don't exactly know what you want me to say about this, but I'll try my best to answer this. Christians aren't going around attacking people for not believing; you can't attack a "lack of beliefs" and if by some means some "christian" did so that would be completely contradictory to the Christian values which that person says they represent (?). Christians are killed for their beliefs in many countries (not by atheists by any means, just to clarify), and my point there was that Christians are generally good people and they don't do harass people as a direct result of disagreement in their beliefs, and some argument saying that the Bible makes people hateful or harassing in any way just isn't true. However, there are many atheists and non-religious people who persecute and harass Christians for their faith and actively work against Christians. Again, this definitely isn't everybody and I want to make this clear, but the amount of times Christians are directly harassed or "made fun of" (for lack of a less childish phrase) for their faith, or more commonly in their values, is infinitely more than any sort of Christian who would harass people for their lack of belief.

However, I'd imagine there is some sort of social judgement among many Christian communities about the actions of people who are not religious and I could bet you that some of that is judgement rather than contrasting the values but thats significantly more indirect and the biggest issue with Christian judgement is actually with Christians looking down on other Christians (from personal experience this can be super common and pretty sad).

I definitely don't want to come across that "christians are better people than non-religious people" because thats laughable in the fact that its contrary to the entire Christian philosophy of everybody being sinners and that we need a savior in Jesus Christ. Christians just try to be the best they can just like any other good conscioused individual but acknowledge that they are indeed not perfect.

Saying that people who use the Bible to attack people aren't Real Christians and don't represent Christian values doesn't change the fact that those people exist in some capacity.

There have been many phases in my life where I simply felt uncomfortable sharing that fact that I was atheist in my community, because I'd be shunned or attcked for being immoral off the bat. I currently live in the Bible Belt and used to live in Utah, and not everyone takes such an academic view of Christianity.

They may not be Christians to you, but their values are shared and validated by their communities. You can't ignore that.