This one actually IS for the Christians.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by BobDole

I believe in God.

Holy shit! It's my nigga Bob Dole! How's the D to the C treating you my man?!

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Saya

That assumes the sole purpose of religion is to make immoral people moral.

Originally it was, you fucking retard. It was also there to fill in the gaps of our misunderstandings of nature. That's why we now scoff at the idea of pagan gods being real. You know what... STFU, Saya. You have no points.

[Despanan]

That assumes the sole purpose of religion is to make immoral people moral.

No it doesn't.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Then you admit that religion is pretty much pointless because human goodness would be there with or without it. So WHY IN FUCK would you ever consider religious goodness to ever be okay or even the same thing? Are you superstitious? Are you spiritual or religious? If not, then you're on the wrong side, toots.

Please don't call me toots.

Why is religious goodness wrong? Do you consider it to be inherently wrong or less good than non-religious goodness, or is it OK if it's not bigoted? Salvation army doesn't deny their services to anyone. They'll feed an axe murderer before they call the cops on him (they wouldn't let him go, of course). Is that wrong?
I'm not superstitious or religious. Probably the closest thing I get to having a religious experience is when I look at something that's beautiful but not man-made, like a lone willow on a riverbank, or a spectacular skyscape, or thick snow clinging to evergreens, and that's more of a "I'm fucking glad that exists so I can appreciate it. I just don't think that it's wrong for people to believe in the divine if it suits better than not.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

But I get it. You don't care about what I'm actually saying, you're just butthurt because I'm also being a dick and picking on people while I prove point after point. Fuck me being right, KK is being a dick about it, so we have to keep railing against him even though we know he's right.

You're right, you are being a dick about it, and doing nothing for your cause. I fully support your aim of getting people to embrace science. I just don't think that saying "You can't prove your god exists, therefore you're an idiot for believing in it" is going to get you anywhere.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Jesus fucking Christ. Going by your logic, we should teach creationism right next to evolution in science classes and let the kids decide which one is right.

Wrong, Kontan. Religion is not science, Creationism is not science. You know this, but I never said it was so, nor do I think anything religious belongs in the science classroom BECAUSE IT"S NOT FUCKING SCIENCE. Science belongs in Science class, religion belongs in World Religion class. That is an absurd direction for you to extrapolate my position to. Honestly, where did that come from?
Humanity is not strictly science and cold reason, you know. Our brains are more complex than that. Irrationality is as much a part of humanity as is logic, and both have allowed great things to be achieved.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Originally it was, you fucking retard. It was also there to fill in the gaps of our misunderstandings of nature. That's why we now scoff at the idea of pagan gods being real. You know what... STFU, Saya. You have no points.

Depends on the religion. We have no idea what the purpose of prehistoric religion was, presumably to explain natural phenonenom, true, but what about Zen, Taoism, Sufism, and all that jazz?

[Alan]

Everyone shut up right now. I have to address each one individually and these are the only important things to address in here.
Address my following post:

[Alan]

Kontan - No it wasn't. Not only was ethics not the original purpose of religion; but it's not even its most important one. Ethics is the one thing we're discussing right now, but that is because we live in a secular world and that's the only thing religion has left.

Saya - The argument does not necessarily assume that ethics is all religion is for. I am admitting it right now. There are many more issues but I am actually indeed trying to sway this fight into a specific fight on the ethic defensibility of religion.

Dame - Kontan did not say religious goodness is wrong; he just said that (to imitate his level of anger) there's NO FUCKING USE for the addition of RELIGIOUS in RELIGIOUS GOOD. I have asked you very specific questions but you only answer a fragment.
So stop that and try to come up with one sole good reason why we should even bother with "religious charity" as a principle when "charity" is good enough? What is lost when you take religion out of the equation that makes it so necessary? It's Occam's razor. For anything to matter, it has to be irreducible to its parts. Therefore for a religious action to matter, it must prove that it is somehow better than the same thing without religion tossed into the mix.

Desp - you're good, but the last parts of the fight really do focus on only the ethical side. Not assuming; just emphasizing. But still. Saya brings a good criticism but on an entirely different point when we're just not done with this one.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Saya

Depends on the religion. We have no idea what the purpose of prehistoric religion was, presumably to explain natural phenonenom, true, but what about Zen, Taoism, Sufism, and all that jazz?

Pffft. It's just romanticized philosophy. A constipated and rigid code that technically is better than the abrahamic religions. BUT, at least I can breath a sigh of relief knowing that these belief systems are pretty much irrelevant as they should be. Atheism is still better though.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Pffft. It's just romanticized philosophy. A constipated and rigid code that technically is better than the abrahamic religions. BUT, at least I can breath a sigh of relief knowing that these belief systems are pretty much irrelevant as they should be. Atheism is still better though.

Zen does not have a rigid code, there's guidelines sure but we have masters who got drunk and slept with whores. The more philosophical version of Taoism has no code to speak of, and they all value the individual experience above dogma. But its not romanticized philosophy, at least not in the Western sense.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

Please don't call me toots.

Why is religious goodness wrong? Do you consider it to be inherently wrong or less good than non-religious goodness, or is it OK if it's not bigoted?

Religious goodness is inherently less "good" than secular goodness because religious goodness is done out of fear of punishment/desire for a reward. This has already been addressed. Please read the damn thread toots.

Salvation army doesn't deny their services to anyone. They'll feed an axe murderer before they call the cops on him (they wouldn't let him go, of course). Is that wrong?

Yes. Get that axe murderer off the damn street before he kills someone else, don't let him just sit there slurping noodles you dick.

I'm not superstitious or religious. Probably the closest thing I get to having a religious experience is when I look at something that's beautiful but not man-made, like a lone willow on a riverbank, or a spectacular skyscape, or thick snow clinging to evergreens, and that's more of a "I'm fucking glad that exists so I can appreciate it. I just don't think that it's wrong for people to believe in the divine if it suits better than not.

This is because you hold politeness over truth. This point of view is logically inconsistent, and inherently dishonest. Again, read the thread.

You're right, you are being a dick about it, and doing nothing for your cause. I fully support your aim of getting people to embrace science. I just don't think that saying "You can't prove your god exists, therefore you're an idiot for believing in it" is going to get you anywhere.

Kontan never said that. He said you're an idiot for continuing to argue indefensible positions and completely missing the point. You're embarrasing yourself. Stop it.

Humanity is not strictly science and cold reason, you know. Our brains are more complex than that. Irrationality is as much a part of humanity as is logic, and both have allowed great things to be achieved.

No one has argued that. Now you're trying to make Kontan and I into straw-Vulcans. Once again, read the thread and stop embarrassing yourself.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Yes, Religion came about to explain things we didn't know, and they tend to suit the environment they started in. Volatile gods tend to come from volatile places.
(Control of the populace was another big one, but I think that tends to be a twisting on the part of later rulers).
We have science to explain most of the world now, but it leaves things lacking for some people. Take the question, "Why are we here?" Science answers it with "to perpetuate our existence through the making of babies," but can you see where that might fall a little flat?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Saya

Zen does not have a rigid code, there's guidelines sure but we have masters who got drunk and slept with whores. The more philosophical version of Taoism has no code to speak of, and they all value the individual experience above dogma. But its not romanticized philosophy, at least not in the Western sense.

Actually, we're not talking about these inconsequential religions anyway.

[Alan]

Science does not answer existential questions.
God damn it. You can't say I didn't try. I'm just going to leave you guys trying to justify your positions with sernior high school stoner pseudophilosophical justifications and utter ignorance to the historical development of religion.
I'm not ruining my saturday with such little understanding of what you're talkign about.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Actually, we're not talking about these inconsequential religions anyway.

Sufism is a type of Islam and Buddhism is indeed one of the world's major religions, and I don't know if you know this, but there's a lot of people in Asia and traditionally they didn't have the big three. Also, you did attack my Buddhism earlier, and we are saying "religion" generally, and since Buddhism is apparently making me weak, it stands to reason that I should be able to defend it, no?

Are you saying they are inconsequential or that you simply don't know enough about them to argue about it?

[OnyxBat]

Religons are over rated and strict, if there wherent any religons the rate of homosexuals would be booming and people will live freely with out fear of hell or getting the worst of things. Christians are closed minded murders, its like telling a 7 year old that a the wall is purple when its really white, thats when you question them about god.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by OnyxBat

Religons are over rated and strict, if there wherent any religons the rate of homosexuals would be booming and people will live freely with out fear of hell or getting the worst of things. Christians are closed minded murders, its like telling a 7 year old that a the wall is purple when its really white, thats when you question them about god.

Holy shit.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by OnyxBat

if there wherent any religons the rate of homosexuals would be booming

Hahahahaha, what.
Thsi made my day.

[OnyxBat]

WHAT!!!!! its true, there could have been a great chance that most men would be gay and women would be lesbians!

(if you think about it deeply...we would not have holes in our ozone layer from the massive amout of humans)

[Versus]

I am most men and I assure you, I would most certainly not be gay in the absence of Christianity.

And to the second... I have nothing to say

Stop derailing this thread.

[OnyxBat]

I am not derailing the thread I am just letting out my thoughts. And it is not just the absence of just christianity I am talking about a 'religon' in general.

[Versus]

You are derailing this thread because your thoughts have nothing to do with it's topic.

Religons are over rated and strict, if there wherent any religons the rate of homosexuals would be booming and people will live freely with out fear of hell or getting the worst of things.

Furthermore,

Christians are closed minded murders, its like telling a 7 year old that a the wall is purple when its really white, thats when you question them about god.

If you're not talking about Christianity, then what could you possibly be referring to?

[Alan]

Jesus fucking Christ, Onyx. I thought it was a hilarious and unfortunate use of words but you're actually that fucking stupid.

[Versus]

I don't believe she is stupid. I think she is young.

Also. It doesn't matter if you were talking about Christianity or "religion in general" (is such a thing possible?) because your assertion is false in both contexts.

[Alan]

Doesn't matter if you're eight, you just CAN'T possibly believe most people in the world would be gay were it not for religion.

[Versus]

I don't mean the belief. That is unquestionably stupid. I mean the thought process that formed that belief is what is immature. I think it's pretty common at her age, which is why I don't believe she is stupid.