You are such a goddamn idiot.

Yeah, and what happens if after he's done, he chops through a few members, kicks down the doors, and murders a few more people?

Regardless of your religion, it's goddamn retarded to "feed an axe murder" before you call the cops on him.

Already been answered. Read the thread.

Yes, as do I. However, it's a mixed bag which is filled with candy and cobras. We already have candy out here, so why leave the cobra bag laying around?

Chill out toots. You're embarrassing yourself.

Fine.

Whatever. They hope for converts BEFORE the charity.

You SHOULD care. Yeah, it'd be fucking amazing if people actually DID indeed internalize their faiths so that we can just see it as a minor character flaw of that person, BUT THESE RELIGIONS DEMAND YOU EXTERNALIZE YOUR VIEWS and it's inherently DISHONEST to be soft about these sorts of demands. You have to understand, WE didn't pick this fight. A theists' book of ethics and standards picked this fight a long time ago.

And that means it's about the same as RAT POISON. Just because it helps a little bit RIGHT NOW doesn't mean we should be silent and let these damaging superstitions perpetuate into the next generation just because it's fucking polite.

Toots... I'll call you toots if I damn well feel like it. I don't have to respect your personal sense of entitlement. You're just an asshole to me. Why should I stop calling you toots just because it bothers you? You think I want to be your friend or something, TOOTS?

Agreeing to disagree is bullshit. If you were sitting in math class and your told your teacher that 2+2 was 5, he wouldn't say: "let's agree to disagree" he'd tell you you were wrong and correct you. You do not have a right to your opinion. You do not have the right to never be confronted on your retarded ideas.

You thought you were going to come into this thread, and say something snarky and condescending and not have to back up your position. You thought you were going to be able to invalidate our position by fallaciously dismissing it. You thought you'd be able to get away without answering for yourself. You were wrong.

And now you're trying desperately to save face. I won't let you.

Sorry, you messin' wit REAL niggas in here. you picked a fight with someone much, much smarter than yourself, and now you're going to have to deal with that. I am content to verbally beat you into the floor until you either admit you were wrong, or your tiny mind snaps from the strain: your choice babe.

There will be no "agreeing to disagree", there will be no quarter given.

I am right, intelligent, and attractive. You are wrong, stupid and probably fairly ugly.

This is fact. Now admit it, and you can get on with your life. Continue to deny reality and watch how crazy things get.

...You see, we're really not the monsters you think we are. We're just ahead of the curve.

Nah. Everyone is entitled to their own individual opinions. But no one is entitled to their own individual truths

So.... were you molested by a priest?

Catch, every time you say something, it's like you're coming in to take a SHIT on the floor right in the middle of polite society.

Actually, no they're not.

Also: It's an informal logical fallacy

You're right. They would be entitled to it if an opinion were merely a judgment call, but an opinion can be any statement.
A judgment call by definition requires even the most minimal evaluation of at least a bit of information. An opinion does not need this.

Alan, you'd just be making the argument against people feeling entitled to their opinion in a debate even stronger.

Actually, I kind of wanted to bring this up:

http://doroteos2.files.wordpress.com...xist-black.gif

This... is a lie. There's only one way this can be possible. To make all faiths completely and utterly socially irrelevant and even then, on paper, this is rather offensive. I can not stand this mantra. Not because I want there to be violence between the faiths, but because this mantra flies directly in the face of every single religion. It's dishonest and passive aggressive. In fact, it compounds the superstitious lies in an even greater lie because they can't all be right and this implies that all religions should permit other religions to exist. That's one of the most dishonest and cowardly actions I can imagine, really. I wish this were something that can be true. But read their scriptures. All of them claim to be the ultimate truth and no one else. Hell, even if all of them but ONE didn't claim that they were the ultimate truth, this would still be a big ugly lie.

And what's creepy is that I think a lot of you are pretty damned okay with this kind of lie. That truth means nothing in the face of politeness. That challenging ideas at risk of offending someone is somehow WORSE than practicing this mantra. It's disgusting.

*sigh*

It's got more than four letters doesn't it? I don't know what words with more than four letters mean.

Except supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus which really is quite atrocious.

Yo, bitch. Why don't you address me? I'm the one that said that.

You said "And you guys aren't being condescending towards me?"
That's verbatim.
You're saying we were condescending towards you. We weren't. We we blatantly mocking you. No backdoor insults. No passive aggressive bullshit. Just open and unambiguous antagonism. That is the opposite of being condescending.

What's wrong with violence between faiths? It's totally okay.

You are not the first person i've met who has got a thrill out of beating me. In fact I'm over men who think they can bully others into their way of thinking because they are 'right'.

*sigh* I already did and I'm leaving you kids to your playground.

Go and find someone else to pick on.

Whatever, hag.

Over men? Men? What do you mean? You sound kinda sexist, bitch.

Well.... now that you mention it...

You misunderstand. I'm not interested in getting you to agree with me. I don't think you even have the capacity to fully understand our argument.

I'm just gonna verbally spank you until you learn not to try this passive aggressive bullshit near me.

Also: Fuck you for implying I'm anything like some asshole who slapped you around. I'm some douche making fun of you in a goth forum, not "Lester after he's had a few beers". The fact that you would use a traumatic experience like domestic abuse in order to score points in an INTERNET FLAME WAR, is frankly sickening.

You can't use your fucked up life as a weapon. I will not allow you to hold me or anyone else emotionally hostage.

No you ain't lester the molester, but you mis-interpreted the word beaten. And I feel all kinda special that you have read my other posts.

Internet flame war huh? Sounds like a good 'un.

Still think your whackas but.

You guys might like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzY...eature=related

As I remember, it's Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry arguing that Catholicism's net effect on the world has been a negative one. Although it could have used some stronger speakers on the religious side.


That doesn't address what I said at all. I didn't really mean people who lost their faith. That seems to imply a sudden change and nobody is talking about that. Imagine a future where there is no religion due to slow decline - I'm pretty sure this was what the others were talking about. You sounded like you were arguing that this future world would be worse off because there would be less charity. I don't think "less charity" is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the present day situation. In any case, the net effect of religion on the world is not solely based on its charity.

My god...you're like a more responsive, version of Catch.

Des is owning this thread. The end.

Damn right.

So...Did fruitbat actually get bad-touched by some guy named Lester? Because I just pulled that name out of my ass.

I didn't see that earlier post, I can't get online often enough to follow this thread in its entirety, its seems.

Anyway, to go back to that, I am absolutely more interested in how religion feels, because thats the point of it all. Eastern religions and a lot of elements of Abrahamic religions (Christian mysticism, Sufism), reflect on individual experience, of a different kind of knowledge, and Rumi said it best when he described it as a language beyond language. How can we say if its right if we can't put it in words?

I absolutely love healthy debate about religion, I really do, these are my favourite kinds of threads usually. I'm just absolutely sick of the arugment that RELIGION IS A POISON AND RELIGIOUS COEXISTANCE CANT EXIST AND IF YOU ARE RELIGIOUS YOU ARE STUPID. It doesn't help, its childish, and antiproductive. Atheism is the most logical path, that is true, but when people do have experiences, its only human of them to take the religious path if they do so choose. The validity of their doctrine is one thing, but their own faith is personal and often untouchable, if its broken its a conclusion they must come to themselves. I do argue often about people when their faith affects me or others, such as homophobia, but the very basic belief in a higher power, be it God or Jesus or the Tao, I find difficult to touch. You can say you won the debate because you scream the loudest, but it doesn't change the fact that humans have turned to religion since we were human, and its not going to change. China persecuted all religions for many years, and now that its (mostly) okay to be religious again, its enjoying a fantastic revival. Its not going to go away because its inconvenient, or deemed evil. Should we determine policy with it?

Gotta run, to be continued.

And you know I've been uncomfortable with elements Buddhism before, we talked about this when you said I should give the Dalai Lama a break for being anti-sex and other things. My own personal faith is non existant.

Sorry, I was at school and the next volunteer came in early, so I gave her the computer and went home.

Anyway, sorry for not rereading and editing, I just typed all that and didn't want to have to exit and start all over again when I got home. I mean to say after "Should we determine policy by it?", that we absolutely shouldn't, because there are times when you should be absolutely objective, law making is one of those times.

Christian faith specifically can very much be focused less on scripture and more on the individual's relationship with God, scripture isn't the be all and end all of religion. There's reason to believe that yes, the Bible isn't the word of God, but that doesn't deter many from seeking a relationship with God anyway.

And as for it poisoning people's mind, determining policy, people killing over it. We kill each other if we look at each other funny. We've fought wars over economic systems. America even overlooked religious differences and armed the Taliban to fight the dirty communists. Is religious thought inherently poisonous, or it is the tendency to be extremist? I know anarchists, communists and capitalists who get along just fine, hell we see that on this board most of the time. And yet according to communism, capitalism is exploitive, we shouldn't be able to live together. But we do, go figure. And there are those who would be willing to kill if they thought a revolution could succeed, but you don't see too many people anymore, well, outside the Tea Party, checking their bathrooms for Bolsheviks.

That said, absolutely you should combat extremism in all its forms. Whether its the Vatican or the Tea Party, religious or irreligious. or whatever it is. But that wasn't the purpose of this thread, unless you're just that dumb not to realize you're preaching to the choir. In the video Raptor was talking about Stephen Fry even acknowledged he has nothing against the individual believer, its the Vatican as an institution that is the problem. Religion is a human thing, however, and you're quite frankly going to have to learn to get along with people of all kinds of faiths, even the ones you don't like, its not going to go away in our lifetime, if ever. Extremist Christianity is oppressing you? Go forth and get thee to thy destiny, and smash that beast. But HP voting against Prop 8, my mom hoping she gets to see her parents and her siblings again someday, korrinna being an atheist pagan, a fifteen year old reading LaVey isn't hurting or affecting you in anyway, or anybody else. Plenty of people are religious without being oppressive, they don't have the political arm, unfortunately, but its absolutely possible to live in relative peace and quiet with them, and dare I say let them help you fight extremism. Hell, I have a super conservative aunt who I can still get along with fine, and I don't know if I'd change her if I could.

Politics are immanent. Religion is transcendent. If it is transcendent it is unquestionable, unchanging, and total.
Where political theories say "this is what is, what ought to be, and what might become"
religious dogma will say "this is what is, what you are in it, and what must remain"

There's really no logical step from comparing politics to religion except that religion influences politics, but that is not a step any more than a tennis shoe is a logical step towards a bicycle.

Also, again coming to this same old thing:
And is that BECAUSE of their religion or IN SPITE of it?

Simple. If it truly is "Beyond words" It is something that is immeasurable, unprovable, and uncommunicable. In other words: completely unintelligible to anyone but the individual experiencing it, and therefore it is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to the physical world, and is totally pointless to bring up in this discussion.

However, I don't really think it is beyond words. I think it's simply a heightened emotional state brought on by a certain sensory experience (Meditation, Shared Communal Experience, a specific view or a moment in time. etc) You forget Saya: I was a Buddhist. I've had religious experiences as a Buddhist, a Christian, and an atheist. In fact, the most intense ones have been as an atheist, because I can actually appreciate what I'm experiencing for what it is, without the layers of superstition clouding my mind.

As I've said, this stuff feels great, but at the end of the day if you don't recognize it for what it is. If you confuse it for something beyond an emotional experience, you open yourself up for manipulation, and you can be lead to do some stupid, or downright evil things as a result.

No one has claimed any of those things. In fact I've said several times that I don't think religious people are stupid, just victims of indoctrination and social pressure. They've been religious nearly all their lives, and there's the social perception that atheists are immoral and that a human being positively MUST believe in a God(s) in order to be complete. This is fallacious.

Though I did compare religion to a bag filled with candy and vipers, that was mainly for humor. Religion is socially harmful, and can be downright insidious, but to claim I said it was poison exaggerates my position to a point where I'm not comfortable.

It IS however similar to an opiate, and I doubt you'd disagree with me on that, seeing as you're so wrapped up in the emotional experience of the whole thing.

And as for religious Co-Existence being impossible, you're straight up wrong. It is possible, Kontan even said it. True religious Co-Existence is possible when Kontan and I get our way, when all of the world religions are socially and politically irrelevant. Then followers can Co-Exist and believe whatever they want and follow their faiths without imposing on non-believers and other faiths.

I agree, but it's also only human to hate people who are different, and to fear things irrationally, and to think tribally. There are plenty of things we do naturally which are unhealthy.

...and often times they'll never get there if no one points it out in the first place.

I would hazard to say that this is because, you yourself believe in a higher power, and become uncomfortable when this idea is threatened.

It's a very natural reaction. I used to experience it. I don't anymore.

I'm not screaming. This is all text. I won the debate because I am more skilled at conversation, more entertaining, and my ideas are better than yours.

Yeah, I've thought about it, and I was wrong then. You're wrong now, and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

That's because they were raised to believe that they're broken without it, and can't emotionally let it go. ie; the results of indoctrination at a young age, and current social pressures. They're smart enough to be good people in spite of what their religion really is.

You've already made this argument, and it's already been rebutted. This is like saying: "People are going to die in car wreaks anyway, so why bother with seatbelts and speed limits?"

It's a poor argument. Stop using it.

Man, I remember when I used to think like this. It would be such an uncomplicated world if extremism was really the problem. The thing is, extremism in itself is not. It's being extreme about the wrong things that's the problem.

It is perfectly permissible to be extreme in response to extreme situations. If your government starts herding gays or jews into camps and gassing them, you are more than justified to take an extreme stance against them.

It is a truism to say that: Moderation is the key, but like most truisms, it is blatantly, observably, and measurably WRONG.

Yes, and the Choir called us terrorists, compared us to Nazis, and accused us of wanting to burn/ban holy texts and forcibly suppress religion. I don't want to think about what'll happen when we bring this argument to the true believers.

Why would you assume that I don't know how to get along with people? Even after this I'd still probably beat you in a popularity contest. Just because you want to get along with someone doesn't mean you need to lie to them, or give credence to stupid ideas.

Korrinna knows I consider her faith to be friggin' retarded, and I take the opportunity to politely inform her/remind her of this when it presents itself. (and no, she's not an atheist pagan, she's just a pagan with atheist friends who wants to fit in a bit more and isn't ready to give up her silly beliefs, you can't BE an atheist and a pagan).

You avoid confronting people you have an emotional attachment to because it's polite and your emotions muddy the waters. You care about their feelings and your relationship to them. That's fine, I do the same, but that doesn't mean I don't hold the beliefs I do, nor confront those whom my emotional attachment to is lacking.

and that's all I have to say on that post, Alan pretty much handled the rest.

I'm calling this one. We win.

I just don't understand the bizzare amount of hatred coming from someone talking about the benevolence of an athiest society. Seems as though, you'd be nicer, not talk over people and maybe take a moment to consider what you are reading from Christians.

This hatred is really creepy and uncivilized.

GOD DAMN IT! I JUST MOPPED IN HERE and you just come stumbling in and shitting everything up again. CLEARLY you hate me.

aren't u guys worried about he'll? It's REAL.