Religion and Atheism

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Fear of going to hell? I suppose if you don't listen to your boss because you don't want to lose your job and end up on the streets, that could be hell.

I didn't say that's the only time people act out of fear of the consequences. It doesn't make it better that people do it in other circumstances.

YOU are the one who implied the religious are disciplined, whereas the non-religious are not. Now, defend that claim with some evidence plox.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Where in the world would you draw this conclusion from?

How is doing things out of fear of going to hell discipline anyway?

Fear of going to hell? I suppose if you don't listen to your boss because you don't want to lose your job and end up on the streets, that could be hell.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

I'm not religious = I have no self discipline

Where in the world would you draw this conclusion from?

How is doing things out of fear of going to hell discipline anyway?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

I'm not religious = I have no self discipline

"the undisciplined are slaves to moods, appetites and passions”.

In the longer term, the undisciplined lack the freedom that comes with possessing particular skills and abilities. For many people discipline is a dirty word that is equated with the absence of freedom. In fact the opposite is true. Discipline is freedom.

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

You're not doing a very good job of being agnostic then.

[Armanen]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Doesn't seem like you have been following this thread much .. I am not an atheist.

You're not doing a very good job of being agnostic then.

[Sip]

Re: Religion and Atheism

If you haven't sensed by now, I don't take a literal view on things. If you want to decipher whether or not miracles really happened or are a representation or symbols of something with a greater message then I think in the bigger scheme of things, it makes little difference. I was not alive to see it (and if it happened today, I probably would be a skeptic) but I don't doubt that the teachings of Christ would make for a better world and to denounce Christianity over some rather unprovable events would be rather foolish.

Let this be proof that people can come to agreements even in religious threads! I definitely agree with you here 100%!!!

[KanadaHye]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Kanadahye, the question to you still remains (I know you like to just jump from topic to topic as it is convenient) ... but here is how things went:

As you know, I don't like to conform to a "box" (2D or 3D)

So do you agree that there is a difference between a historical fact supported by irrefutable evidence (i.e. an event like the Genocide) and historical stories that are the basis of Christianity? Or did you end up wanting to say Genocide is just as true as Christianity? I am really having a hard time understanding what you want to say here since you change your tone as it suits you

Prior to the international definition of Genocide, the concept wasn't recognized by an international body. For a rather "civilized" world who should be literate of these terms and events that are described in texts even as old as the bible you would think humanity would have been more developed by the 20th century. There is war, famine, disease, hunger and everything else that is described in thousand year old texts that are still happening in the world today.

If you haven't sensed by now, I don't take a literal view on things. If you want to decipher whether or not miracles really happened or are a representation or symbols of something with a greater message then I think in the bigger scheme of things, it makes little difference. I was not alive to see it (and if it happened today, I probably would be a skeptic) but I don't doubt that the teachings of Christ would make for a better world and to denounce Christianity over some rather unprovable events would be rather foolish.

[Sip]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Kanadahye, the question to you still remains (I know you like to just jump from topic to topic as it is convenient) ... but here is how things went:

1. I said I see a lot of similarity between Genocide denial and blind faith in the Lord as neither is supported by true evidence.

2. You said any Turkish lawyer could kick my ass about the Genocide as that too is "just stories" passed from generation to generation.

3. Then we had some back and forths.

4. Then you said Genocide is fact.

So do you agree that there is a difference between a historical fact supported by irrefutable evidence (i.e. an event like the Genocide) and historical stories that are the basis of Christianity? Or did you end up wanting to say Genocide is just as true as Christianity? I am really having a hard time understanding what you want to say here since you change your tone as it suits you

As far as my poop comment, it was an illustration that it is easy to play with words and come up with fancy quotes. I can do it all day and it can go either way. I totally agree with Siggie. Please lets stick to the essence of the questions here and not try to get preachy with non-sensical world play. Christianity brings warm and light you'll say and brings stains of poop I'll say and we'd just go back and forth with nothing really being said.

The basic matter that was being discussed between me and Kanada at least is the trueness of claims of Christianity (I have said before that I like Jesus's philosophy on life a lot so that is not the problem). The problem are baseless claims like resurection, miracles, creation, and all the other what I call "hocus pocus" stuff that is really not relevant to us in this day and age. Just to reiterate the main point I have been making, those are only supported by the Bible and the Bible is only supported by being the "word of God" which the Bible itself claims to be (so there is a problem of circularly one supporting the other). And yah, we spent some time discussing wether God actually wrote the bible literally Himself or not (I think I lost some IQ points on that one)

[Siggie]

Re: Religion and Atheism

Destruction of evidence over a period of time doesn't make the event false. It just means that records of the event may have been destroyed or manipulated. The records themselves may have been tampered with. In any event, one shouldn't believe anything they hear and only half of what they see which is why they should form their views from their own experiences or from studying the world. We rely too much on the word of others when we know people tend to embellish the truth or downright lie for their own benefit. It's the nature of mankind. Some claim travel is the best form of education since that's the only way you can truly learn the truth about the world.

This sounds like you're explaining why an evidence-based approach may be problematic in your opinion.

The historical accuracy part...?