I don't dislike Jesus...I just hate his fanclub

[Lardlad95]

The more I think about this the more irrelevant it seems.

I stand by my position that people here are too harsh on the religious. Calling them irrational and dillusional in my opinion is wrong.

however I'm not really one to defend religious beliefs. OF course I still recognize that evolution has holes in it, so do theoretical physics.

My final statement is that empirical evidence isn't used as support for every statement. Theoretical physics is based off of mathematics, something that is itself theoretical, and religion is based off of philosophy.

But whatever...This just isn't an arguement I really wish to have anymore...and I'm not really sure why I started the topic.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:58 PM
The majority of the working class are religious. The majority of the working class are christians.


In what country?

We don't have all the answers, probably never will but we have a solid basis of scientific evidence to make informed speculations as to the missing pieces of the jigsaw.

Why should we tolerate the religious who for so long have treated us as sub-humans, exploited our emotions and forced thier utter, utter gibberish upon us from childhood. The have warred and burned and slaughtered and they shall be crushed and there's no need to be polite about it.

[Lardlad95]

In what country?

Roughly 17% of the entire worlds population identifies themselves as Athiest/Non-religious/agnostic. The other 83% identifies with some religion.

We don't have all the answers, probably never will but we have a solid basis of scientific evidence to make informed speculations as to the missing pieces of the jigsaw.

Never said you didnt. But there are things that leave LARGE blanks holes in the scientific arguement for the origins of life. In addition the origins of the universe are left up to theoretical physics. Alot of which is based on mathematics. unlike evolution you can't really make phyiscal tests of theoretical physics, at least not in regards to the creation of the universe.

Why should we tolerate the religious who for so long have treated us as sub-humans, exploited our emotions and forced thier utter, utter gibberish upon us from childhood. The have warred and burned and slaughtered and they shall be crushed and there's no need to be polite about it.

Yes...the average religious person has been responsible for that...

Look my problems are with hypocrisy, condescention, and closed mindedness.

Be angry at injustice, so am I. That isn't what I"m talking about here though.

[STI]

One of the reasons I left che-lives was because of the incessant religion bashing

If you don't like it, get out of the religion forum.


We were talking down to the very people we profess to want to help

I don't profess to "want to help" religious institutions. I guess you do.


The majority of the working class are christians

And we should try as hard as we can to change that, because, odds are, as long as that fact remains true, revolution ain't on the horizon.


We were so condescending, speaking as if because we don't go to church we are some how better than they are.

I've never seen anything like that. I've seen people disagree with church-goers (and win, and know they've won), but I've never seen anybody speak as though they are "better than" anybody. Only when people resort to name-calling and stupidness (ComradeChris, for example)


Religious people aren't stupid and I think it is high time that the hostility stops.

Not "stupid", but consistantly against us when crunch time comes.

And irrational.


No one here knows who is right. For all we know Zues could be real. No one here has died, no one here can honestly say that they know what happens after death, or how human beings came to be.

We make the most likely bet based on all the evidence (or glaring lack thereof) compiled over the last few centuries. Do YOU act as though Zues is real? How about the invisible fire-breating toad behind you?

Why not?


Everyone here who claims that they know that Darwinism explains human existence is every bit as closed minded as creationists.

We SHOULD BE closed minded toward groundless ideas.

The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that we have evidence on our side and they don't.


Darwinism can't explain a lot of biological occurences.

The holes in Darwinism are fewer and smaller than Creationism's. Also, which has gotten better over the years? Evolutionary science, of course.

Again, it's the smart bet.


Also I have no problem with people saying that organized religion is used to oppress people. I have no problem with you attacking the structure of organized religion. But too often people here go beyond that and insult the people.

Examples?


If someone is being closed minded and wont listen to an arguement from an athiest that is one thing. But a lot of people are being hypocrites when they are just as closed minded as the people they profess to be smarter than.


I've never heard anybody profess to be "smarter than" any religious person.


And I think it is time that we take a step back and stop looking down on people.

We don't. We disagree with them. Do you have examples of this "looking down"?

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:29 PM
Roughly 17% of the entire worlds population identifies themselves as Athiest/Non-religious/agnostic. The other 83% identifies with some religion.


Right, religious not christian as you previously stated and none of these countless religions truly compatible with another resulting in some of the most bitter ars and acts of horror in history.

And how do you go from holes in scientific argument to beleiving the un-beleivable and completley unfounded in logical terms?

[Lardlad95]

see the original post.

For the record this isn't an admittance that you are in any way correct. I've just come to the realization that this arguement will be circular.

if you really want me to respond to your statements, i can do so through Private messaging.

[Lardlad95]

Right, religious not christian as you previously stated and none of these countless religions truly compatible with another resulting in some of the most bitter ars and acts of horror in history.

I apologize, the christian thing was in refference to the working class in the US and Latin America.

And how do you go from holes in scientific argument to beleiving the un-beleivable and completley unfounded in logical terms?

This is really more to say that you can't say 100% that Darwinism is right.

Also "logic" can involve inductive reasoning which is often used to argue for creationism. Then again there are many flaws in inductive reasoning.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

I cannot say 100% that Darwinism is right but how can I ignore the overwhelming physical evidence of evolution?

How can I beleive in dusty old books about bogie men and gods and monsters?

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 14 2005, 06:59 PM
I cannot say 100% that Darwinism is right but how can I ignore the overwhelming physical evidence of evolution?

How can I beleive in dusty old books about bogie men and gods and monsters?
Your opinions are based on your interpreation of the world.

There is a christian saying the exact opposite of what you said.

I don't think anyone is wrong or right. I just think that there needs to be a mutual respect.

I mean "overwhelming" is relative. Some theologian may think there is an overwhelming amount of "philosophical" evidence. But once again overwhelming is relative.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:10 PM
I mean "overwhelming" is relative. Some theologian may think there is an overwhelming amount of "philosophical" evidence. But once again overwhelming is relative.
I guess I side with physical rather than philosophical evidence, which seems something of a misnomer.

[C_Rasmussen]

Oh yeah you&#39;re really thinking when you people say that you hate religion due to the fact of what others did HUNDREDS of years ago. Not all Christians bomb abortion clincs and ramble on and on about people going to hell. Some of us are more openminded then that <_<.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:59 PM
Oh yeah you&#39;re really thinking when you people say that you hate religion due to the fact of what others did HUNDREDS of years ago. Not all Christians bomb abortion clincs and ramble on and on about people going to hell. Some of us are more openminded then that <_<.
Yes...which is one of the reasons that I retracted the original thread.

I saw nothing but circular arguements in the future of the discussion

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 14 2005, 06:59 PM
I cannot say 100% that Darwinism is right but how can I ignore the overwhelming physical evidence of evolution?

How can I beleive in dusty old books about bogie men and gods and monsters?
If you can&#39;t say Darwinism is 100% right or nothing for that matter, how can you say anything else is 100% wrong? It&#39;s foolish to argue.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:29 PM

One of the reasons I left che-lives was because of the incessant religion bashing

If you don&#39;t like it, get out of the religion forum.


We were talking down to the very people we profess to want to help

I don&#39;t profess to "want to help" religious institutions. I guess you do.


The majority of the working class are christians

And we should try as hard as we can to change that, because, odds are, as long as that fact remains true, revolution ain&#39;t on the horizon.


We were so condescending, speaking as if because we don&#39;t go to church we are some how better than they are.

I&#39;ve never seen anything like that. I&#39;ve seen people disagree with church-goers (and win, and know they&#39;ve won), but I&#39;ve never seen anybody speak as though they are "better than" anybody. Only when people resort to name-calling and stupidness (ComradeChris, for example)


Religious people aren&#39;t stupid and I think it is high time that the hostility stops.

Not "stupid", but consistantly against us when crunch time comes.

And irrational.


No one here knows who is right. For all we know Zues could be real. No one here has died, no one here can honestly say that they know what happens after death, or how human beings came to be.

We make the most likely bet based on all the evidence (or glaring lack thereof) compiled over the last few centuries. Do YOU act as though Zues is real? How about the invisible fire-breating toad behind you?

Why not?


Everyone here who claims that they know that Darwinism explains human existence is every bit as closed minded as creationists.

We SHOULD BE closed minded toward groundless ideas.

The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that we have evidence on our side and they don&#39;t.


Darwinism can&#39;t explain a lot of biological occurences.

The holes in Darwinism are fewer and smaller than Creationism&#39;s. Also, which has gotten better over the years? Evolutionary science, of course.

Again, it&#39;s the smart bet.


Also I have no problem with people saying that organized religion is used to oppress people. I have no problem with you attacking the structure of organized religion. But too often people here go beyond that and insult the people.

Examples?


If someone is being closed minded and wont listen to an arguement from an athiest that is one thing. But a lot of people are being hypocrites when they are just as closed minded as the people they profess to be smarter than.


I&#39;ve never heard anybody profess to be "smarter than" any religious person.


And I think it is time that we take a step back and stop looking down on people.

We don&#39;t. We disagree with them. Do you have examples of this "looking down"?
Someone asked me when I said I was on the Demoractic Left, they said "What does that make marxism" I guess you just proved marxism is the authoritarian left.

You are being inherently biased, and in a sense, you are being prejudiced against religion, because you are assumnig every single religous person and institution is dedicated to a certain set of strict morals, laws, class division etc.

Chrisitianity began as an underground movement of the poor and disenfranchised, much like socialism, and when a major empire accepted it, it became institutionalized and corrupt. This is much like socialism in the USSR, China, and North Korea, with it being corrupted and twisted after being accepted by a major nation.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:26 AM
If you can&#39;t say Darwinism is 100% right or nothing for that matter, how can you say anything else is 100% wrong? It&#39;s foolish to argue.
I never said anything is 100% wrong, it&#39;s not about numbers. It&#39;s about rational thought, organized religions ask us to blindly beleive in the intangible. Whereas the scientific process of Darwinism is based on hard facts and physical evidence. How anyone can deny what is before their eyes on "faith" in the 21st century is bewildering to me.


This is a pointless argument though, it&#39;s like talking to brick wall.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Jun 15 2005, 12:35 AM--> (CrazyModerate @ Jun 15 2005, 12:35 AM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 05:29 PM

One of the reasons I left che-lives was because of the incessant religion bashing

If you don&#39;t like it, get out of the religion forum.


We were talking down to the very people we profess to want to help

I don&#39;t profess to "want to help" religious institutions. I guess you do.


The majority of the working class are christians

And we should try as hard as we can to change that, because, odds are, as long as that fact remains true, revolution ain&#39;t on the horizon.


We were so condescending, speaking as if because we don&#39;t go to church we are some how better than they are.

I&#39;ve never seen anything like that. I&#39;ve seen people disagree with church-goers (and win, and know they&#39;ve won), but I&#39;ve never seen anybody speak as though they are "better than" anybody. Only when people resort to name-calling and stupidness (ComradeChris, for example)


Religious people aren&#39;t stupid and I think it is high time that the hostility stops.

Not "stupid", but consistantly against us when crunch time comes.

And irrational.


No one here knows who is right. For all we know Zues could be real. No one here has died, no one here can honestly say that they know what happens after death, or how human beings came to be.

We make the most likely bet based on all the evidence (or glaring lack thereof) compiled over the last few centuries. Do YOU act as though Zues is real? How about the invisible fire-breating toad behind you?

Why not?


Everyone here who claims that they know that Darwinism explains human existence is every bit as closed minded as creationists.

We SHOULD BE closed minded toward groundless ideas.

The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that we have evidence on our side and they don&#39;t.


Darwinism can&#39;t explain a lot of biological occurences.

The holes in Darwinism are fewer and smaller than Creationism&#39;s. Also, which has gotten better over the years? Evolutionary science, of course.

Again, it&#39;s the smart bet.


Also I have no problem with people saying that organized religion is used to oppress people. I have no problem with you attacking the structure of organized religion. But too often people here go beyond that and insult the people.

Examples?


If someone is being closed minded and wont listen to an arguement from an athiest that is one thing. But a lot of people are being hypocrites when they are just as closed minded as the people they profess to be smarter than.


I&#39;ve never heard anybody profess to be "smarter than" any religious person.


And I think it is time that we take a step back and stop looking down on people.

We don&#39;t. We disagree with them. Do you have examples of this "looking down"?
Someone asked me when I said I was on the Demoractic Left, they said "What does that make marxism" I guess you just proved marxism is the authoritarian left.

You are being inherently biased, and in a sense, you are being prejudiced against religion, because you are assumnig every single religous person and institution is dedicated to a certain set of strict morals, laws, class division etc.

Chrisitianity began as an underground movement of the poor and disenfranchised, much like socialism, and when a major empire accepted it, it became institutionalized and corrupt. This is much like socialism in the USSR, China, and North Korea, with it being corrupted and twisted after being accepted by a major nation. [/b]
And yet, there isz a difference to all o&#39;ris, Christiany has been tainted and lost it&#39;s first scent, but socialism may have been tainted but not lost it&#39;s full scent. Some may have gone to Authitorianism...but...not all have been revised. There&#39;s still a standin&#39; wall of Anti-Totalarianism left...Luxembourgism&#33; Q&#39;ed ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+--> (CrazyModerate)You are being inherently biased, and in a sense, you are being prejudiced against religion, because you are assuming every single religious person and institution is dedicated to a certain set of strict morals, laws, class division, etc.[/b]

Isn&#39;t that rather like saying that we are biased and prejudiced against Nazism? That we are assuming that every single Nazi person and institution is no damn good?

No one notices, much less criticizes, our "bias" and "prejudice" against Nazis and Nazism because, with the exception of Nazis themselves, everyone else now agrees that all Nazis are bastards and Nazism is shit.

But religion? That&#39;s different.

Is it?

The 12-year Reich certainly holds the Guinness Book of World Records title for "Most Murdered in Shortest Time Span" -- no question about that.

But over our 5,000 or 6,000 years of recorded history, has not religion easily out-scored the Nazi totals?

The Jewish Torah (Old Testament) is packed with slaughter, both divinely-commanded and at the direct hands of the "Almighty" himself.

The New Testament is fairly peaceable by comparison...but there is a curious incident that takes place before the body of the Christ had had a chance to grow cold in his new grave.


Acts
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.

5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles&#39; feet.

5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

"God" up to his usual bad behavior again or did a more earthly hand do the deed? Either way, it&#39;s interesting that the first Christian community (celebrated by fools as "communist") begins with blood on its hands.

But that hardly prepares us for the Book of Revelations...recently made into a television mini-series on NBC.

In the final chapter of The New Testament, everybody gets killed...well, except for 144,000 saved men (no women). (I imagine NBC had to do a lot of work on the script. :lol:)

The truth of the matter is that the Holy Bible should always be printed in ink that is the color of blood.

It is a book of death...a million times worse than Mein Kampf.

And one which American Christians faithfully observe to this very day...in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Colombia, in too many places to list.

Yes, I am deeply biased and prejudiced against religion. I would be ashamed not to be.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[STI]

Someone asked me when I said I was on the Demoractic Left, they said "What does that make marxism" I guess you just proved marxism is the authoritarian left.

How so? Because I disagree with somebody on the internet and engage them in discussion?

How Stalinesque of me.


You are being inherently biased

By your standard, every statement ever is "inherently biased". That statement is. Same with that one right there.


you are being prejudiced against religion

Havn&#39;t they earned it?

And, again, I&#39;m disagreeing with it, not.... whatever the hell you&#39;d like to think I&#39;m doing.


because you are assumnig every single religous person and institution is dedicated to a certain set of strict morals, laws, class division etc.


The ones who aren&#39;t are either confused, misinformed, or lying.


Chrisitianity began as an underground movement of the poor and disenfranchised

So did Nazism. What&#39;s your point? The fact that something started as "an underground movement" doesn&#39;t make it a good idea and doesn&#39;t make it somehow "pro-socialist".


when a major empire accepted it, it became institutionalized and corrupt.

I guess you&#39;ve never actually bothered to read the Bible. It was reactionary shit before Constantine got his hands on it (of course, getting power sure put that reactionary shit into practice).


This is much like socialism in the USSR, China, and North Korea, with it being corrupted and twisted after being accepted by a major nation.

Well, guess what, I ain&#39;t a socialist, so you can go bark up another tree.

I&#39;d claim that what went wrong in the USSR, China, et al. has to do with fundamental problems in socialism, not because "it was accepted by a major nation".


... hold on a minute&#33; What I&#39;m getting from that statement is that, whenever something is "accepted by a major nation", it suddenly gets all fucked up. Really?

So, then, what&#39;s the point in trying? If, whenever we try something, no matter what it is, it just gets fucked up when a major nation (North Korea&#33;?&#33;?) accepts it, why even bother? Better just throw in the towel.


I stand by my position that people here are too harsh on the religious.

Yet you havn&#39;t bothered to back this position up with examples.


Calling them irrational and dillusional in my opinion is wrong.

Do you mean "morally wrong" or "factually incorrect"?

I&#39;ll assume the better of you, and go with "factually incorrect".

They are irrational. Religion has no evidence to support its claims. It requires faith (the willful suspension of rationality).

People who believe in god are objectively irrational.


OF course I still recognize that evolution has holes in it

No scientific field has gotten "to the end of the line" and has "all the answers". Is that a good reason to retreat to the crap-pond of "faith"?

I sure as fuck hope not&#33;


Theoretical physics is based off of mathematics

Those are all hypotheses. Some hypotheses work better than others (none of the good ones require god, of course), so we "go with them". It&#39;s the "best bet", and we&#39;d be stupid not to.

Theoretical physiscists recognize this. Watch any of those crappy "educational videos" from the library about the history of Astronomy and they&#39;ll talk about how the ancient Greeks figured stuff out (relatively well) with mathematics alone. Then you&#39;ll hear them say "But, as we&#39;ve come to know, what works mathematically doesn&#39;t always translate perfectly in reality".

Theoretical physicists are always looking for empirical justification for their claims, as well.

Empiricism remains at the heart of science.


religion is based off of philosophy.


Oh, well, then. Let&#39;s pack our bags, atheists. Religion is based off of philiosophy, so it ***MUST*** be true.

A lot of stuff is "based off of philosophy" and a lot of it is crap. I really don&#39;t see what your point is.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:35 PM
Someone asked me when I said I was on the Demoractic Left, they said "What does that make marxism" I guess you just proved marxism is the authoritarian left.
God Damn it&#33;

I have NEVER seen any legitimate point showing Marxism as authoritarian.
Marx was ultimately for a classless society; Marxism 101.
Anyone that says Marxism is authoritarian is negating Marx&#39;s involvement in Marxism&#33;
I&#39;m with Marx here; if this is Marxism, I am no Marxist&#33;