COH: Europe In Ruins

Ok Mysth you first.

1.The burning of Joan of Arc was a political move. The English wanted her out fo teh way since she was a major pain in the ass. Mark Twain a non Catholic who researched his book Joan of Arc for 10 years admitted that the court who tried her was corrupt and did not represent the Church.

2. The Catholic Church can show from now right to the apostles a line of legitmate Bishops. No other Church can do that. I fail to see how that is an assumption. You can go thorugh history and see who teh Apostles consecrated and who their successor created and so on and they will all end up Catholic.

3. I never said the apostles were perfect. I said that they taught despite not being perfect and yet a perfect creature did not teach. If both women and men were allowed to be priests it would be logical to chose a perfect person would it not?

4. I'm saying that you and I can choose what we want to believe. This is shown throught the placebo effect. People take drugs that do not scientifically work yet countless claims have been made by the takers that they do work. This is because they want to believe that it has worked.

5. Yes the police would arrest me but really would I have done wrong. Common sense says no. Double effect is when your action has two outcomes both good and bad. For the action to be lawful you must want the good and it must outwiegh the bad. Otherwise you can say that fighting Nazis german was wrong and Britain should have left them to it.

6. If you claim to follow a mans teachings then you have to follow his teachings. He is the precedent.

7.Religion is not something that can be proven by a formula but rather through logic. 2+2=5 not being true doesn't mean people won't believe in it. Its an extrremely crude example of relativism which is a commonly held philosopy today.

8.Everyone coming from africa is a theory. It is taught in schools because most Goverments are secular i.e. religion is a nothing to them. There is more evidence that the cradle of civilisation is mesopotamia (israel-iran area) they have found actual ancient cities and records of law and order and written languages. In africa they found a skull. You choose want you want to believe.

9. Exactly the HRe was not around in 96 Ad so could they have burned all the original bibles when we have bibles from 96ad? There was a ruined ship found in mesopotamia on a hill dating to BC times. Ever wondered why even aboriginal religions have a flood story?

10. Therefore its is impossible to do nothing you are either actively doing evil or actively doing good.

11. Mortal sins kill Gods life in your soul, they do not destroy it.


Ok AmPM now:

1. I'm saying that both men and women can do different roles but they are better at different roles. In the extreme cases men will fail more in roles suited to women and women will fail more in roles suited to men. For example women in special forces, or men looking after a large family while the motehr works.

2. God gaves us free will. It is up to us to exercise it. I can choose to punch my mother in the face or take he out to lunch. The punch is my fault not God's.

3.Not caring either way is an evil. There is no middle ground the same way something can either exist or not exist.


Guys to save my fingers we can do this over vent if you really want too. Once my family has gone to bed though. So that will be in like 2 hours or something. Or We can keep typing.

either way ill be off for an hour

There's a theory, that there were different human races. Giants and such ya know, like those that survived the great flood and lived until they were killed by men like us. There were so many skeletons found in all areas of the world, proving to be from humans twice as big, and a theory says that there were giants in the time of dinosaurs too.
Giganticism, like all those ancient bugs, being as big as a dog etc.

Last but not least, i hate turtles.

Baine mate I'm sure your a nice guy but don't take the piss. Men and women have died for the beliefs I hold.

More were killed and forced to worship it then ever died to defend it

It still does not disprove the original point of me bringing her up - that women CAN and HAVE been great leaders in history.

Your assumption is that a church is made by there being apostles. It doesn't matter at all - a Church is formed once it has enough followers and a religious hierarchy, not if there's people from old times.

The apostes were taught by Jesus. How can you teach a perfect person anything? He's already perfect. That's the reason why Jesus didn't teach Mary - you keep dodging that.


Placebo works because having an optimistic outlook releases certain hormones which strengthen the immune system. Immune system equals more capability to fight an illness. However, you can eat placebo all you want - you're not getting cured from AIDS. Because it has already killed your immune system.

Yes, you would have. You would have taken something that rightfully belongs to somebody else and used it for your own personal benefit - which is to make you feel better about donating to a just cause. You're still a thief looking out for your own good - even if it's not material. And yes - fighting Nazi Germany was bad. Just like every single other war in existence was bad. But Britain had a commitement in the form of an alliance, and it had to help it's allies. Going out on a signed contract usually bodes bad for the country backing out of it. Britain didn't fight because it wanted to save the world from the evil Nazis(which were far less evil than the Soviets) - but because they had a commitement.

So you're learning to walk on watter tomorrow, then?

Formulas are pure logic - they use maths, which is the base to all logic. No religion in the world has ever been based on logic - only on logical flaws. It is a common held philosophy in the mid 19th century that smoking is good for you. Being comonly held doesn't make the philosphy right,

Finding the "skull"(which is actually countless bones and other fossils) proves that man as a species originated in Africa. Cities, pots and everything else shows that civilisation first originated there. Have in mind China got it's fair share of cities and stuff at roughly the same time as the ones in Messopotamia.


And that's exactly why the one who mentioned the books being burned said it happened when the HRE existed. Which means - not in 96 AD. You still haven't proven there being a Pope in 96 AD. The reason why most tribes have a flood story is because of the massive impact the whole melting of the ice and thusly floods that happened at the end of the last ice-age. I'm pretty sure seeing entire tribes whiped out from the low lands, drowned completely, would be something to pass on, generation to generation.

Which is our point - evil isn't the lack of good, but an active thing. Therefore, if God created good - he created evil too.

And then what happens?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT CHURCHES AND RELIGION HAVE TO DO WITH THE SECOND WORLD WAR?


Seriously, I am confused right now

And men and women have died protecting the independence of my land from the Teutonic Order. Which, by the by, had absolute and complete protectionism by the Pope. Now, isn't the Pope supposed to be God's chosen upon the world? Therefore - more or less so perfect? How come couldn't he see the evil that was the Teutonic Order then? Raping women, pillaging, seeking nothing but power and personal wealth? Why would the perfect Pope(and not just one - dozens of Popes that lived as the Teutonic order did as well) be blind and sanctionise, and even SANCTIFY the pure evil that was the Teutonic Order? Particularly while the Teutonic Order was also attacking Poland(which had gone Christian long before the Order was formed) and, by then, converted Lithuania?

@Brn - Hitler had signed a Concordate with the Pope and the Church of Dresden sort of burned down. That's what we're building upon here.

No where in the last page have i seen anything about war or burning. Seems like you guys were on apostles and some crazy stuff

Alright I'll deal with the little posts first.  Spartan what do you mean more have died in forced worship? I can gurantee you that in every age of man Catholics have been persecuted across the globe. In the Roman empire, other Pagan socities, in Islamic countries, in Protestant Countries in CHina in Nazis occuppied Europe (a german officer has testified that the calling sign in France for SS units was smashng crucifixes in Catholic Churches) Even In Sudan today muslim arab militia persecute the African Christians.

The Tuetonic order fought for Land not for the name of God. You cannot go on a Crusade against a Christian country. The Pope is not perfect. The Catholic Church never has and never will say that the Pope suddenly becomes perfect when he is elected.

Every religion, every faction has persecuted the other. The fact that there are so many factions/sects of a particular religion typically paints a bad image on everyone else.

Saying all Catholics are violent car bombing assholes because of what the IRA did in the 70's and 80's is no better then saying all Muslims are terrorists.

Persecution happens, live with it. The only way to avoid religious persecution is to do away with religion. Then we'd all be in here arguing over scientific persecution.

You seem to be peacefully blind of Catholicisms criminal massacres and murders of members of other catholic sects

1. I'm not saying they can't. This argument has digressed. Basically women can't become Priest because Christ never made a women a Priest even though logically he would chosen a perfect person (his mother) for the highest calling available to man. Surely he had a good reason for doing this even if it is unclear to some.

2.Christ founded the Church. He founded it on Peter and gave the apostles the powers and postion of governors of this Church. These apostles were given the power to chose there successors and so on down the line it goes. The direct line from the apostles is neccesary if you want to claim Christ founded your CHurch.

3.???I never said a perfect person was taught anything. I said that perfect people would be the ideal teachers. Jesus and Mary were perfect yet only Jesus taught. Why was that? Men and women have different roles. Being a priest is not one of the women's roles.

4.I never said believing something made it true. I merely was showing that you have the ability to want to believe something thereby showing that faith is an act of the will.

5.So you are saying that it is better to let a boy die then to steal some food from a wealthy man and feed him? If you truly belive thsi then you have no concept of right and wrong.

6. Please don't resort to mocking just because I refuted your argument and you have nothing intelligent to say back.

7.I would say that not believing in God and therefore in a religion is ill-logical. Only religion can explain the very begining of this world. All other theories start from an arbitary point where the world has already been created. Surely you would agree that it is logical to start from the beginning and move on to the middle and end at the end. If you don't start from the beginnning you can propose any theory you want and it will hold together.

8.The first records of legal system ( a major sign of civilisation) was in mesopotamia written by a guy called hamurabi, research him if you don't believe me. All historical fact points to this are being the cradle of society.

9.Once again this argument has gone off on a tangent. NOt all bibles could have been burnt by the holy roamn empire since Churches existed during its time outside its sphere of influence.  Also I refered to 96Ad becuase the manuscript we have from then is the same as its translation in our bible. Therefore we can say that the bible is still intact and has been handed down from the early times. There was a Pope in 96 AD, research Pope Clement. It is a fact that he was Pope we have numurous sources pagan and christian alike pointing to it. The fact that all religions have a flood story supports the idea of the human race coming from one family, Noah's, after the flood.

10. The point is that God out of his love for us allows us to choose what we want to do. We face the consequences since it is of our doing, we either go to heaven or hell. You would claim that he was an evil God if he forced you do things against your will.

11. By your choice you chose to live aprat from God and so you shall for all eternity.

I saw this in a South Park episode. The Pope is actually supposed to be a rabbit.

Please then enlighten me. There is no suuch thing as Catholic sects by the way, either your in the Church or out of it.


Brn4me I'm saying that no other religion has been persecute so much globally. If you have another religion who has please tell me and I will stand corrected.

The IRA were Catholic but the Church never condoned their actions. They did have a just cause for their war they just went about in the wrong way. If you are familiar with english history you will know that since the reformation Catholics have been treated like crap. Even now if a person is Catholic they are not allowed to sit on the throne of england. Any other religion can though.

I've said before and I'll say it again don't take this piss out of things people have died for it just makes you look bad. I don't make fun of people fighting and dying in iraq even though the legality of the war is in question.

I wasn't joking about it I'm dead serious. I saw it in a South Park episode. Even though the legality of the church is in question.

I've got lots of angles, you want me to play the Priest + Boy = PR disaster angle?

You wanna go down that street eh? Well its not like there is a higher percentage of pedoes in the church then there are in the outside world. You know what else is intersting a communist man who became a priest died and among his belongs there was found an instruction sheet telling him to join the priesthood and generally do everything he could to wreck stuff. Its in a book called aa-10-25. Do you really think the church is without enemies. Surely you know that more dangerous then the enemy without is the enemy within. It aint that hard to become a preist you know..anyone who sets there mind to it can do it for what ever reason.......

isn't the current pope tied to some child sex scandal cover up in california?  I say arrest the fucker and throw him in jail and teach the religious bastards they aren't above the law ;)

Oo.. yes I am right

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

Hell what every goddamn catholic forgets about their church is this, god may be above the law of man, but the pope is one of us and may not even truly believe in what he supposed to represent and just because he hides in his own country doesn't mean we should put up with his actions.

I for one have no use for that old man
pope looks like a pedo...

So, God can rape children?

Yet he is promoting dealing with this problem is he not? Spartan your starting to sound like one of those evangelicals who centres his whole life around Catholic bashing becasue that is the only way he can defend his own flawed religion. If your just going to insult without providing proper arguements then I'll leave you to it. Like I said I would I've dealt with everything you've thrown at me with logical arguments based on historical fact and Christian principles. If you can't take that then fine. Dig the dirt but do it on your own. I'm done here.

One may promote dealing with this problem. But such issue should only have one answer you rape a child you go to jail. The fact that priest don't and are instead brought to another place to teach just goes to show how flawed your religion has become

you think just because you are a priest you deserve a 1 time free pass for rape?

promoting to deal with a problem after you have been implicated does not make him innocent.  

If I shot someone in the head, and later started an organization against shooting people in the head, I would still be guilty of shooting someone in the head, and need to pay the price for my actions.

he is not above the law, not in todays day and age.  Ultimately the CHURCH is not the BIBLE or JESUS.  We are all human, and these high and grand popes / bishops, anyone for that matter. Are all basically just people, and subject to the laws of man.  They need to suffer the consequences of their actions while they are alive, as well as when they are dead...  and the church tries to never suffer while they are alive.

+1

We never say that we are above the law. I believe Priest being tried under Church law goes back to the fact that the Vatican was a state and religious people were memebers  of that state. The Pope was never a paedophile so the analogy doesn't really work. The document was released becuase he knew how the liberal media treat anything smutty to do with catholics. Why make a big thing of something you can try and deal with on the quiet. I admit this problem is still exists but then it does aswell in society. No solution has really come up to deal with the problem. Sexual perversion are prevalent everywhere and I would say less so in the church due to celibacy even though the media would have you think otherwise.

I can support these cliams becuase you can see how another peadophile is being treated. Roman Polanski he is a celebrated film director in Europe, the media are sympathetic to his cause no one head hunts even though he is a paedo.

The Church has suffered much in this world and they do so willlingly. Do I really have to go back to the countless martyrs who suffered and died for their faith, they make up the church as do I.

Spartan what do you belive in? What is your religion? Just becuase the messengers are bad does not mean the message is bad.

The numbers of pedophiles happens to be higher among priests because you know.....ummm... negating a fisiological need like sex has consequences; like corrupting their mind leading to the actions we all know already.

Born pagan, live like a pagan, likely will die pagan as well.

Tolkien's myth happens to be a good analogy of christianity, because it's the same but with logic and the knowledge of two thousands years of literature knowledge applied (like any other religion, it can't be proven real but it can not be proven false as well); the bible may have been enough to fool most people back in the day, but not nowadays, philosophical evolution also exists.

@Cuban Lynx

1. None of the current priests, bishops or even the pope have been chosen by Christ either. By that logic - Christ doesn't want ANYONE to be a minister of religion at this point.

2. It doesn't MATTER. You base a church on the faith of the people - not on whether there is a long succession of bishops that can be dated back to the Apostles. You do realise there is no way to check the validity of the succession actually being unbroken? Documents could easily have been forged.

3. So how could have Christ taught Mary - she was already perfect. Christ chose the Apostles not only for them to teach others - but for them to be taught by Christ himself. You also need to remember that Mary was the synonym of Humbleness - she would not have wanted to preach, even if Christ had asked her to. Not to mention that moral perfection does not equal the ability to preach.

4. You can't "want" to believe something. Either you believe it, or you don't - and it's entirely unrelated to your wants or will.

5. Yes - it's not me doing the bad deed by not giving the boy food - but the rich man. If you have food yourself - give the boy food yourself, but don't steal it from others. Asking the rich man to give the boy food is also a possibility. Whenever you steal, or commit any other crime, even if it's for a just cause - you've already commited a crime.


6. You didn't refute anything - you used a logical flaw yet again. You're claiming that you need to follow precedent if you want to learn a man's teachings. Thusly - you need to follow EVERYTHING the man did, not just a select few of things, as precedent needs to be followed to absolute perfection. Therefore - you need to learn how to walk on water if you want to truly follow Christ's teachings by precedent. If you, however, chose to follow his PREACHINGS, rather than his precedent(like, you know, whenever you learn anything else from any other teacher) - you simply ignore the precedent, as you simply CAN'T be the exact same as anyone else in the world. Not morally, not intelectually, not physically.

7. Except that Scientists can already trace back and prove the history of the universe up to 0.00000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang. It's not going to take all that long for us now to find out what actually happened during second 0 of the universes existance, and afterwards - perhaps even what was there before that. Not everything needs to have an end, Cuban - the Universe itself is infinite. You can fly at millions of years at 10 times the speed of light in any direction from Earth - and you'll never hit an invisible wall or anything. You'll just keep on going.

8. Where have I claimed otherwise? I told you - we as a species come from Africa, and the first three major civilisations were in Messopotamia, China and Egypt, with Messopotamia being slightly earlier than the other two. Oh, there's also the Indian civilisations(the ones in India, not in America).

9. Yet again - you're utilising a logic flaw - basing an assumption on an assumption. You have provided ZERO evidence of the church existing as an institution in 96 AD(mostly to do with Christians being crucified and burned constantly at that point of time in the Roman Empire). You haven't proven there having been a pope Clement either. Please cite an actual historical source - a link would be acceptable as well(though it would only be of relative value). The source you should cite must be completely neutral to the case(A known, certified historian that is NOT a christian).

10. If God does indeed exist - then he is evil, or at least completely apathetic. We have agreed that evil is an active thing - not just "the lack of good". So if God created evil, or even if he tolerates evil's presence - he must be evil. He's omnipotent and omniscient - he should have been well aware of what Evil could do before it had been created. Why did he create it in the first place?

11. No, you said that the life of the soul is killed. What happens to the soul once it's life is kille? I'm pretty sure that killing life in a soul would more or less so be destroying it.

Indeed it doesn't. But if a group of bandits came in, raped your wife, shot her in the face, then tortured your children to death(perhaps crucifying them), then told you that you should donate money to charity - would you be very compelled to listen to the bandits after they leave your house? Because that's more or less so what the Teutonic order(and other orders of their kind) did when trying to Christianise the pagan nations of the Baltic - just replace "donate to charity" with "Follow Christ's faith".

Isn't he there to guide the entire faith? So, if a flawed man leads a faith - what is there to show us the faith isn't flawed as well?


With never excluding the entire middle-ages, yes? The pope in those days quite frankly said himself he's not just above man's law - he's above any man ever to have been seen in existance. He leads the kings and he leads everyone - he can't be judged. And let's not forget that priests could never be trialed under regular trial. No - they would need to answer to a religious tribunal, which would often just sentence the man to nothing more than reciting all the prayers 10 times over. So yes - Catholics have, for a very long time, been and assumed that they are above the law.

And believe you me - the Pope and the Church condoned the Teutonic Order's actions. If it didn't - I don't think all the letters urging German, English, French and Spannish knights to come help the Teutons in the east would have been sent/

I was enjoying the discussion on WW2, and the discussion on religion and its many human faults (ie church)..  but really they aren't the same thread anymore..!

Seperate them then :).

Mysthalin english isn't your first language is it? You seem to misread all my arguments and misinterpret it. We are starting to go round in circles. I'll answer back to your post but probably for the last time since I'm tired of reiterating myself.

1.Christ chose the apostles, he gave them the power to chose their successors and soon down through history it goes. It has been historically proven that the line is only unbroken in the Catholic Church. This is why the Church of England never uses the argument that Christ didn't choose the bishops in this modern day. If you want to go down  the line of document forging then you could probably disregard the entirety of history.

2.If you want to make any old religion then no it does not matter. If you want to claim that your religion is the one Christ instituted then yes it does matter. Since they are the men who were given the faith first to pass onto others through their successors.

3. This is the part where I think you don't understand what I'm trying to say.  I'm saying becuase Mary was perfect she would have been a better teacher. So unless Christ had a reason for only choosing men to teach it would be logical for him to choose Mary as a teacher. Had Jesus asked her to teach she would have done so. She was perfectly obedient aswell.

4.Your feeling do not control you, you control yourself. A woman can feel like eating when shes's hungry but she can choose not too if she wants to lose weight. Feelings influence you but they do not control your will does.

5. It is evil if you have the ability to save the boy. What is worse stealing or killing someone? You seem to think stealing some food is worse.

6.My logic is not flawed. I'm saying if you want to follow a man properly you have to follow all his teachings. Christ never taught to walk on water, although interestingly he did say that if you had a little faith you would be able to move mountains.

7. The big bang starts of with the assumption that all the material is already there. They cannot explain where it came from. Logically everything in this world must have been caused by one uncaused thing, we call this thing God. I won't explain it here because it will take too long but look up the Teleological argument, the Cosmological argument and finally look up the law of causality.

8.The theory that we came from africa is just that, a theory. It has not been proven. The evidence of civilisation is overwhelming evidence that humanity began in the biblical area. This theory of africa being the mother country is popular becuase it supports evolution, which has nowadays largely become a atheist doctrine almost.

9.Research Pope Clement please. Just to get you started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I. It is a historical fact that he existed. I'm not a historian with all the documents in front of me, but if you care to research you will find he does exist. If the Church did not exist then why did he claim in a letter that he the Bishop of Rome had a higher authority over the Church of Corinth then the Bishop of Corinth Himself. Look up Flavius, he was a Jewish Roman Historian who touches upon the subject of Christianity in his histories.

10. No we have not agreed that. I said that Evil is the absence of good. I also said that doing nothing is either good or bad depending on the circumstances. I was trying to show that there is no nuetral ground in regard towards good and evil. HE tolerates the existance of the creature doing the evil since he loves them becuase he created them. He does not tolerate the evil, i.e. Satan is in hell. Humans are given until the end of there lives to make up who they are going to hang out with for eternity. Once they die they are either punished or rewarded.

11. I said God's life in the soul is killed/taken away, the soul still exists becuase it is immortal. Not having God's life in your soul when you die means that it becomes a permanent state i.e. you live in hell.

12.The message the bandits preached doesn't suddenly become evil because they preached it. It still is a good thing to give to charity.

13. THe Pope is not a perfect man, when he pronounces on the doctrine of the faith he must be speaking the word of God otherwise this would have been an injustice on the part of God.

14.Yes the spiritual realm is higher than the physical, your eternal life matters more than the one you live now. Please cite for me or atleast point in the right direction as to where the Pope said he is the greatest and most perfect man to have lived.

15.Yet all those countries never came to there aid. When you say letters were sent out do you mean from the tuetons or from the Pope himself. If you mean the Pope then I believe you are mistaken, otherwise once again please point me in the right direction and show where you get this information from.

Salan

I don't think you can say the Church is afault of religion rather that it is a strength. Look at all the other sects of Christianity that have broken away. The Catholic Church has only split once ( we are still in full communion with the Eastern Chruch) and that was becuase men wanted to pursue there own goals and not Gods. Protestant CHurches have split countless times and still continue to do so. They belive in so many different things it is ridiculous for them to claim they are from Christ. Disunity is not the way of God. I can walk into two different evangelical Chruches and they will believe two different doctrines. On so many issues the other Churches have been divided and then they finnaly split up. Only the Catholic Church has remained largely intact and has always stood its ground on contraversial issues. Without the Church the religion would fall apart and eventually just become everyones own different belief system.


Killer

I don't think anyone has come close to topping the greatness of Aristole or Cato. The idea that we are somehow more intelligent then those before us is a false idea. If Christianity is so crazy as you seem to think it is how did 12 uneducated men manage to convert the entire Roman empire. An empire whose greatness has never been matched. How come the educated men of the 1600's like Da Vinci and Michael Angelo fell for this religion if it was so stupid. Unless of course you are claiming that the average man nowdays is smarter than Da Vinci.

Topic split, it was getting way off-topic in the WW2 one.

Unknown, I made another post in that htread while you were moving it, please move it, alright?

First the reason the Protestant sect is better, because it teaches you to think for your self a question all aspects of the bible. Telling you not to trust a priest because he claims to be called from god.

And to the Genius' you mention yes the average man as a much higher IQ then back then. Also their teachings lead us in our everyday life and education. We read their work and study what they have learned at an early age giving us greater understanding upon their works at a much earlier age. And the educated man of the 1600's were few and far between and to be a scientist often meant death by the hands of the church, and not being a Catholic often meant death.

It was pretty much Catholicism or Death back then, and that means only one choice. With new knowledge means we need to always rethink the old ways.

what is the point of this thread anyway?

Religion is stupid.

Religion and Spiritualism is the basis of our civilization

The very morals given to us by religion should be taken to heart (such as the ten commandments and other various ''laws'' of other religions that give us a basis on how to live our life)

Even science should look upon these from time to time as morality may prevent us from creating the next plague or other some such WMD 

Fixed

Fixed

Religion has pretty much played its role already. Sure, you can use it to control the minds of the poorly educated masses.

Religion HAS been useful to human evolution - particularly to society. At an early stage - we needed it - a set of basic commandements that one has to keep if he wants to have a good afterlife... which coincide with a set of basic commandements you need to make sure the society prospers. Of course, we all know of the crimes religion has commited - but without it, we wouldn't be where we are now : that much is certain.

However, just like the stone axe, and later the bow and arrow - it has outlived it's usefullness. We do not need religion any more. For some people it still gives a sense of hope, lets them cope with death and similar things - but overall it's more or less so un-needed to the majority of the populace.

But, seeing as we're a tolerant society - religion will stay for as long as there's people that still believe in religion. I mean - they're not exactly hurting us by believing.

"religion" is a joke tbh, its a set of manmade rules, what I believe in might be considered a religion by some, but what it is is a relationship

but serious myst,obviously you don't believe in religion, but do you believe in a God?

if not, where did earth come from..

I believe in god and luck and destiny.

Religion is only a part of the institution. It's like you want to type a word file on your computer to god, most people use Windows, others use Linux, in the end both will type the same.


LOL pro metaphora.

I don't believe in any religion, and I don't believe in any kind of God. The sheer idea of absolute omnipotence is illogical (could he make a hamburger he couldn't eat? - Homer J. Simpson).

I trust in science, Sharpshooter. I see the proof provided by the scientists - and I know they are right when they say all was formed after the Big Bang. That earth formed from a cluster of dust that started dragging itself together due to gravity. That it was formed the way it is after billions of years of geological activity. We don't yet know what there was before the Big Bang, or why the BB even happened in the first place. But just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't know in 100 years. I'm patient as far as that goes - other than it being interesting, it's not really life-changing for me to know what there was before the Big Bang occured.

religion isn't bad but it need to be the right one

Christianity (and other religions) destroyed the cultural roots of many people

on this note..

Hail Thor, hail Wotan, we fight for a new order
The bastards priests of god will reign no longer
The time is right to fight
See victory or eternal light

Your young blood cry for war, let the battle begin
Burn the cross and smash the fools, we will win
Their holy book is just a book of lies
The spirit of our ancestors will never die

 :D

Fixed ftw!

It takes muscle to decrypt my thinking!

As far as science goes, we don't even know all the species on this planet, much less anything outside of our planet. Science as it is now is the height of Human arrogance, for we believe we know everything when the truth is our 'science' and 'universal laws' may be completely wrong and only proven so far by a set of variables in the universe that we don't even know to exist.

The assumption that there is not a higher being that we can't see or feel is proof that we assume to much and know to little.
 Say if you never left your house except to go to your neighbors house and one day he tells you about this man who lives in a place called china, you tell him that he is an idiot as as far as you know and everything that you have seen there is not place called china and there can't be a man there as it doesn't exist. And with a set of rules and 'math' that you have created you 'prove' to him that it can't exist.
That is our science of our day, it should be taken for no more fact then should the bible. But only with an open mind in both areas can we ever learn the truth, also we must understand that we are an extremely young race and by galactic standards are maybe only just two steps away from when we have discovered fire. Still utterly primitive but yet so self assured and so eager to jump at the least idea that makes the most 'sense' whether or not it really is the truth.

in ending the truth my be so far beyond us that it may take millions of years for us to find it, or even longer if we go down one path convincing ourselves we are right all along.

I follow the Chaos Gods.

Khorne - blood, violence, martial strength!

Tzeentch - sorcery, ambition, change!

Nurgle - death, destruction, disease!

Slaanesh - desire, pleasure, lust!

Did I claim science to know everything? Nope, I said Science will eventually find out everything(well, as much as it can, anyway). Just because we don't know about something now doesn't mean we won't find out about it tomorrow. But I believe in what fact and evidence have proved to exist. If other facts and evidence come along to disprove the theories we have now - I'll be happy to accept them. If in the end scientists get to the big bang, and find God sitting there in a swath of empty space - I'll be the first to admit I was wrong to ever deny his existence. But until then - I'll believe what has been proven to exist.

I also don't believe that we will EVER know everything. It's simply not possible to know how to exist and not exist at the very same time(and by knowing how to do it - you could do it), as the sheer notion of that would be illogical. Though, if we knew everything - we'd have to know that as well. Seeing as we will likely never find out how to do such things - we will never know absolutely everything. But heck - there's NOTHING stopping us from trying to come as close to that as we can.

I'd likely follow Tzeentch, btw ;P.

Never claimed you did, but i know alot of scientists who hold that swagger

Scientists are but human - they can't be hoped to be perfect.

Me, on the other hand... :D

As i said already, science is not perfect and there are more facts that are not really facts. Science is not always right, or likes to leave out things they don't believe themselves.

But - science does alter it's "basic" views when new facts come into play to disprove the old ones.

Light itself, for instance.

Something that religion never does.

Exactly my point. Something that never admits it was ever wrong is flawed by it's nature, and is doomed by it's own stuborn-ness to eventualy be forgotten.

The hell are you two doing? Don't force a lock

Ok, let's get back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbio3CQW59Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbio3CQW59Y)

That's some funky ass music!

Find out as in make up?

The only reason religion is "bad" in a sense is because somewhere a long the line it became a way for men to control and have power, they use religion as a tool to benefit themselves, this doesn't necessarily make religion a bad thing if it isn't used like that.

All religions suck because of how man skewed the teachings of the institute.

only one from memory that hasnt fucked over is buddism. but i wouldnt doubt that if buddism became a major religion in the middle east and western countries, they'll still find a way to skew a teachings and declare themselves HOLY WARRIORS. or wtf bullshit like that.

religion has caused more problems than it has solved.

Has it?

To get a successful analysis, you must try to lower the parameters so they can be considered as only one entity. Here it seems pretty simple: Build a world with religion, or exclude every aspects from it.
Shall I remember you the ethics precepts of our current society? The fact that they are, without any exceptions, based on that "problematic" religion? Or can you understand and analyze a society without those precepts, would you consider it as better? From the fact that nowadays societies would promote wars, aggression, and overall, that "humane" instinct of ours, due to it's incapacity to base itself on any other rules?

Religion, how pointless..

Pointless, how so?

Religions have not been established to guide men, but to serve our needs.

They don't guide? lol

Religion itself does never guide. On some extent we might consider as a tool of propaganda that begun as moral precepts. For example, the crusades were launched by the pope, but why does so many volunteered into the cause of the Templars? Was it out of devotion, or the avarice that could be served by middle-east wealth?
The so-called motive was religion. The interest was wealth. Religion did not guide them, nor help them, they took it, modified it so it could serve their purpose, and use it to justify them selfs.

Mysthalin, you claim to believe in science?
If so, you confirm religion's use. By the nature of what we actually call science, we will never able to grasp the meaning, only comprehend the actual phenomena.
What I mean  is that, due to the fact our sciences are based on comparison (For "pure" science, such as physics and chimics) , in the terms of "If A=B, then C will happen". Therefore, how could we understand the nature, as it being the said base of comparison? How could we establish an rational explanation on the comparison of the said comparison?
Science does indeed indicate what can happen. Religion indicates why it happens.

Pretty... interesting thread.. was alot reading read in 30 minutes.. amm i have to say you guys have pretty good brains, very Nice writtings for that matter... although this guy?? who is he? the one whos fighting MYst?? and all the eirr Atheist?

He has capability to be smart I feel like hes being pretty blind because hes trying to defend why his stick is better then others... In the end... We all just have the same stick...

Think of it as an example Saying that... Basketball is better then Soccer... =/ Really There both Great sports.. and I think they're at the same level but its opinion what they say Soccer sucks or basketball sucks etc etc... I love religion and science thats me... But The way you love something and hate others.. IS genetics... It's proven, by religion and science -.- alike. If you like/hate sports = Genetics, You are fast runner or smart and quick on feet = genetics.... Really all those are just traits picked up by parents and the mixing of anomaly.

5    “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6    “You shall not murder.
7    “You shall not commit adultery.
8    “You shall not steal.
9    “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10    “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

That is a guide on how to be a generally decent person


And to arsonist , your wrong about genetics they proved that when cloning animals the clone would act completely different. What you were claiming about the love/hate of sports are ideals imprinted on you by your parents and have nothing to do with your genetic structure. How good you are at sports are governed by genetics but not your interest.

What? *Does not compute* sorry re-read that and create an actual idea.. not being a jerk.. but its... like blah blah blah blah to me... physics and Chimics lMao

Lmao it's a ... CLONE grr that didn't really follow what I was saying... Its " The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" thing theres also alot varying factors that play along with that.. Amm amm Im not wrong.. Jesus stop trying to prove everyone in the world wrong.

Don't be short-sighted, Spartan. If you consider yourself as decent, is it because some instincts or because of society view?
As I previously stated, those precepts have been adopted by current society, therefore, yet again, it has been used to some purpose.

Thank you.


Then you ASSUME that all we like or dislike is being made by genetics. What about moral ethics? If you were born, let's say, during the 1800's era, you would consider, as anyone else, slave's as normal. Is it because we mutate through time (Don't answer yes to this, or you will only prove your total inadequacy to talk about genetics) or because they received different education, leading to different precepts?

does it matter?


You said genetics determine everything, thus a clone should be identical in every way, seeing as how they are not, then there is more factors to you than your makeup

Of course, if is it because of the said instincts, or alone conclusion, you can then said religion guide you. If it is cause of society, you can then assume that it has been used against (or for, depending on your point of view) you.

For the second point, I totally agree. Pretending genetics determines everything is quite stupid, as you ignore, in it's integrability, human societies thorough history.

No, image spammers is the last thing this thread needs.

I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic.

Thats not what I meant =/.. but thanks for calling me stupid... because I deserved that.. You want to act all high, mighty and appropriate keep the thread appropriate. I meant Genetics comes from your parents who pass on the traits such as liver cancer and etc... and Genetics Does in fact influence what you like.. but it's not like if its absolute truth assuming that its my complete argument is Bias your'e not Reading what I said I clearly stated that are many varying factors and you practically repeated what i said! I feel like you're just trying to prove me wrong for the sense of sanity Its Acupuncture for the mind. and The whole "clone thing" You do know that clones are imperfect right? Up to date Many "cloning" has had major malfunctions till you prove to me Some Journalism Till you can bring me papers Your'e just proving Off of data thats not complete. I don't believe Hypothesis, I believe Facts and Potential theory that can become law.. Your arguments are as good you Calling me stupid.

P.s Also the fact that you guys assumed that I assumed making you assumereally makes all look like an ASS So don't jump to conclusion Since when is anyone that simple minded? I might of not been very clear in my statement I was just trying to show an example.... But Very bad examples at that. But as you wish carry on  The only thing I wanted to put into this thread was one point of opinion. But you haddddd to say YOUR WRONG like a fucking first grader...

If I may ask, what's the purpose of knowing it?

I did not pretend you as stupid. I pretend the one that said genetics determine everything is.
And the base of your point is that there is no point arguing, due to the fact that we would talk about subjects, that would, according to you, be affected by genetic-bias.

And I quote you :
Besides, Science never assumed it was all due to genetics, same for religion.

I'm not on a quest to find a certain truth, I simply withhold myself from making impossible claims in regards to the existence (or non-existence) of some sort of deity in whichever form it may occur (or have occured for that matter).

The problem with atheism is that it falsifies all religions on basis of there not being an 'interventionist god'.
Just because we do not knowingly experience the presence of a God in any way does not necessarily mean God does not exist.

Why exactly was this thread started? We all know everyone has different views, what is the point, just for the sake of arguing?

A fun philosophical read on the subject of religion by the way

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

Why not? As long as it stays within the boundries of respect there is no reason not to let people discuss.

Isn't the goal of all conversation to argue about a peculiar subject?

If I understood it well, it's nothing more than an argumentation based on historic events. In my opinion, it's not philosophical. If you want, however, to argue about any peculiar points in the articles, I'll be happy to do so.

I disagree, while yes arguing about it is necessary for the conversation the goal is to attempt to achieve the truth.

And please don't ask me what the truth is, while i have my beliefs which are a combination of faith (not to be confused with religion for while i am technically a protestant i would still be a heretic as i don't believe most of whats preached just the basic values and the existence of a god or  possibly gods nor do i attend church) and science, i have no clue what the truth is

According to you, the truth would  then be formed by a consensus established over a conversation. And that said consensus would go in favour of whom presented the best arguments. Then, the goal of each conversation would be to argue in the way we consider as best to achieve a said consensus, wouldn't it?

Except that no consensus can really be reached on the subject of whether or not there is a deity. The truth is that there's either one or there isn't but it's impossible for humans to find out.

It could be, but often in presenting ones ideas and beliefs we may imprint and adjust another persons idea so that by the time said consensus has been achieved it is vastly different from where any of the sides have started. Such an alteration may take a long period of time, and as like most discussions they are repeated over and over again by the multitude.

Although as often i have found throughout history that the best theorists existed from before the Catholic rise, when both science and religion could be accepted hand in hand, and neither side would just dismiss an idea just because it came from the other side like so many of us do today.



And just to correct, its impossible for us to find out at our current technological level maybe in a hundred years we will have the power to at least know. As an avid Stargate fan, one thing has come up over and over again. What makes a deity, is it power, morality? If we do meet a higher being how do we determine that that is god, or just a life form that has evolved higher or before us?

Why would no consensus could be achieved on this subject between two individuals? You are implying that no objective truth can be achieved on the subject. In that case, I'm sure you would agree with me that subjective truth can be achieved. Or would you deny the fact that millions of our kind have pretended to be believers?
Objective truth is based on a consensus about a peculiar subject. The arguments, and therefore the subject itself, would be inserted with a subjective view of it, based on one's knowledge and experience, which will result in a decision that we will consider to be an objective truth. We can then concluded that objective truths are based on subjectives opinions. Then again, god existence is a subject that have been debated with subjectives arguments. Following your own logic, we could only be more certain about the answer we would obtain.

What we would consider as god would be what we determine is god, depending on the judgment we would have of the being.

What makes living beings is the ability to choose, what makes an human beings is the ability to judge. (My quote :))

But not disputing your opinion, but how can we ever determine if god really does or doesn't exist till we manage to achieve a true consensus or at least a list of what a 'god'. And i doubt that will ever happen

not another god debate

Post a constructive opinion or don't post at all.

In some sort of way, this can only be individual, depending on your own definition of god, your knowledge and moral ethics. Then after you try to convince others you have the right view.

This debate has remained pure and professional, please don't turn it into a flame war or a parody

Fixed.

There is no problem with atheism. There is only your particular disagreement with it. 

Why wouldn't this thread be started? Humanity has been debating philosophy for thousands of years and we are no closer to consensus on a wide variety of subjects than we were back when we began, but that has never stopped us before from throwing more time and effort into the grinder in hope of a breakthrough.


Also, Malgaroth, Atheism's truthfulness is disputable just like any deity's. It's just as impossible to disprove something exists as it is to prove an intangible entity is real, and Atheists, in general, operate solely off the principle of Occam's Razor (a useful logical device) that since the universe works just fine without a god to drive it, and there is no evidence of a god available that is sufficient to fit their definition of evidence, it is more likely for a god to not exist than to exist, in keeping with the simplest possible solution.

Of course, then there'll be those who argue that god IS necessary for the function of the universe because (insert unexplained phenomena X, such as origin of the universe) and therefore occam's razor is not a valid logical tool to apply. This can go on in a circle for eons, and in fact has, assuming we define an eon as a 'really long period of time with no definite period', where one side will say "god is unnecessary!" and the other will say "yes he is!" and frankly it comes down to opinion.


This is, of course, the reason we invented the philosophical methodology to help us tackle this problem... which has unfortunately thus far yielded negligable results in either direction. Which, as I mentioned above, leads us back to... throwing more time and effort into the grinder in hope of a breakthrough.


In short: it's a fun mental exercise.

My biggest issue with Atheists (not atheism) is that most of them are extremely stubborn and 90% of them (who i have met) who try to dispute my beliefs with me just end up going "NO! NO! your an idiot there is no god!"

But personally when it comes right down to it i try to follow one thing i have ever agreed with Voltaire saying "I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it." (i generally consider the man a dick)

Malgoroth.... Who determines if there's a problem with a said idea? Is it some kind of pre-established rule, or is it based on a community reaction to a precept? If, for example, Unknown decides there's a problem with atheism, and share his point of view to make some of us agree, then there WILL be a problem with atheism.

On what base do you declare that there is none?

To be completely fair, both sides do that. Just being a member of one side you tend to notice it less than the opposing side doing it.

Very true, but its most noted for Orthodox Religions and Atheists (usually Scientist Atheists), as they are the ones who deal with almost the exact absolute (god is allpowerful/ does not exist in any form).

Just like politics...

cbf reading everytin

i shall quote

also i just remembered

religion cant base evidence on anything. they say BLASPHEMY blah blah. opinions

E.g

When we balance units in EIR. we dont use opinions but hard facts. science has facts. religion has opinion and Popular belief.

religion sucks
asians ftw

Yes because committing suicide whenever you have failed has always been the best way to make yourself smarter

btw someone should ban you from intelligent discussion

and now this thread will need a lock, it was going well too

no wrong, im expressing my opinion. its fanatics like you who close off when anything such as facts is brought it


ur an epic first hand example

You stated religion sucks with no reasoning whatsoever. I have already stated that while i believe in a god/gods i follow no organized religion whatsoever (while close to the protestant sect). And refuse to believe that a clever mathematical formula can prove the existence or lack thereof anything.

And evolution only proves that the bible written by man is wrong, not that a guiding hand of some sort helped our species come out ontop

Hell for all i know we are an alien races science project that they forgot about

World War 2 has many examples of men who have defied odds and lived past what science has stated is possible with many more examples of anomalies such as the 82 year old man in india who doesn't eat or drink water apparently for more then 70 years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/10/indian-man-survives-without-food-and-water-baffles-doctors/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/10/indian-man-survives-without-food-and-water-baffles-doctors/) 

I totally accept that Spartan. As do i follow god. but what i believe is that the world would be a much better place without religion.

Religion doesnt evolve ethics of the many. Community attitude and Law and Order shapes that image.

Australians are known for their easy going larikan attitude to life. That was not formed by Religion

Americans attitude towards there daily duties, either domestic, or offshore, is based on their constitution and their Laws. As soon as we add Religion we start to stray away from normal human ethics and start believing that their Above the common man, to a another extent, an opposing religion. we all know what im talking about.

Religion, in many ways than one, down the years have shaped negative aspects of contemporary life.

We could have a Muslim from Iran coming to America and he will be ridiculed and defamed by the public and employers.

We could have another Muslim coming From Australia (Point back towards the attitudes of a typical aussie) and this muslim will still be treated the same way as the Iranian. No matter how they were brought or, or where they were brought up.

Both countries have different standards of living, but both put into a negative basket when they drop the common denominator on them.

We than also have self image issues that Religion can have among one another. believing one is better, or far superior to the other. this also causes issue.


If we didnt have religion, we will still have democracy, law and order. These were not Made from Religion. Democracy was made by Athenian radicals such as themisticles, pericles and ethialtes. Non were swayed by the Greek religion. and all were made upon the principle that Every man was equal under the Law. That is common ethics that humans have.

The end  :)

Ah ok, that is a lot different then how i thought you originally meant you were talking about Religion in the organized power scheming sense and not the spiritualistic faith that should be yours and yours alone not to force on someone else

i dont have enough time to make concise arguements atm as im very busy with my last compulsory year of schooling.

1 last thing to think about before i leave this thread for like a week or so

there is a significant change on how religion was used. before the initiation of christ and mohammed.

prime example

The Greek Gods. The Greeks believed in Moderation (not told by the gods, but their own ethics) If someone over lavished themselves, than the Gods will Punish them. Not the People.

A distinct change occured in Christianty and Islam. common belief was that Humans had the DUTY to right the wrongs of the sinners. Not let god do with them as they please. From than on, it was used as a Tool for Humans to say. "I do this in the name of God because He commanded me to" Or "I do this because it is in his name"

I have some interesting evidence that could convince you of how religion does not create ethics.

The birth place of democracy. Athens. with Pericles Speech towards the Athenians. we can see that the ethics people of that time did infact have of one another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UJLXKlkvlM
A very good quote, from pericles speech is as follows

"We make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them"
Spoken 430BC. Long before Christianity.

This, is awfully similar to the words in the bible "Do good to others so they do good onto you" or something along those lines im sorry im not to familiar with the bible. Or "Love thy nieghbour" i dunno but if you familiar with the bible i do believe you will know what i mean.

underlining. Democracy, law and order, makes ethics. Not solely accountable is religion. nor do we need religion to have the same ethics.

ANYWAYS ive wasted to much time writing this long ass essay when i should be infact memorizing my own essay for my exams

SX - read what I had written just in the last page.

I fully agree that Religion has served it's purpose well in history. It has set down certain laws in society, that were more or less so mandatory for the society to survive. Seeing as a strong and fair justice/law apparatus could not work in the early days of civilisation - having something to prevent crime without a massive army of guardsmen all over(which wouldn't guarantee anything - the guardsmen could be corrupt, lie, steal themselves, etc.) is simply invaluable.

Without religion - the world would definitely not be where it is now. Despite all of religion's crimes(or rather, the crimes of the people that twisted religion) - we don't have the right to disregard everything good that religion has done.

However, now that we do in fact have law institutions that work quite to a good extent, and people have Television to keep them in check(especially after catastrophies : say what you will, the Church WAS a good way of preventing mass panic by proposing mass prayer) - religion is likely just not needed by society any more. However, we're a tolerant society, and some people still feel the need to follow a religion, to have faith in God and the Afterlife. That is their choise - and we don't have the right to stop them from making that choise. Just like religious people don't have the right from atheists making the choise of not believing in anything.


I'm pretty much an Atheist/Agnostic. I can't really say that I'm a pure anything - I'm on the border about some things. Though, I have quite a few friends that are strong believers. We often discuss on theological topics, on whether god exists - but we never get in each others faces about it. I really don't see why this thread can't work - it's been working fine thusfar.


Demon - you have indeed barged in on this thread in a rude and abrupt way, more or less so endangering the topic to be locked, when it's actually a very fun one to read. Please, - if you can't keep up with the conversation's maturity, then just don't post on it. You're welcome to read, and also to post - just do it in a more neutral manner, ok?

sure myst. understood

Just to not, during the time of the Greek gods before Christianity, science and religion were very close to one another and alot of the great minds of the time were highly involved in both religion (which had a much better and friendlier setup then most of todays) and science. Pericles himself ordered and oversaw the Parthenon. One could argue that Christianities ethics were stolen from the Greek gods like so much else of the religion.

But my coffee is done, and bed is calling so i won't...today at least


To me, as long as there is still mystery surrounded our planet and lives, religion or atleast spiritualism will always have a place. As to degree i also find it the balance to science and balance is good

Yea Pericles oversaw the construction of the Parthenon, By getting tribute from the Delian League it controlled. at the time when the Parthenon was built, Was infact the Athenian Empire (The delian league).

Basically athens attacked its allies if they stopped contributing Money to the treasurey of Athens and made decrees to limit the power of its allies. So the longer they tributed to Athens, the stronger athens grew and the weaker Its allies got. So thats why Athens couldnt get kicked out of power. cuz they always had a stronger navy than the rest of its Allies.

Pericles was involved in this. Finding political reason to attack is allies

And this is what I meant about tolerance and individual need of faith. You still feel the need to follow a god, to have an explanation of what created us and what awaits us once we are dead - it just makes you feel better to have this knowledge. And, seeing as it's not hurting anybody - you're free to keep this faith.

What I'm saying, however, is that if we took away religion from our westernised society - not much would change - we would hardly see change in anything. If religion just "disappeared" right after the fall of the Roman Empire, or during the middle ages - The Armageddon would have come quite a bit earlier than expected.

Well lets take a look at societies that followed your line of reasoning Mysthalin. Both Russia and China enforced atheism. They had TV yet look at what happened. 60-120 million people are reckoned to have died in Russia. 300million are reckoned to have died in China during the Great Leap Forward alone. Cleary as bad as you make religion sound the facts show that it is better than atheism. Without God the law of the land just boils down to: "it's only a crime if your caught." TV is not some all powerful arbitrator, it is easy for rich men to buy up stations and choose what they do and do not report.

I believe that religion is neccesary for the survival of a nation. Heavily religious socities of the past manage to bare up with the plague, famine and war against Islam all at the same time. Nowadays societies tolerance levels have dropped, a war with Afghanistan toppled the Soviet Union.

As late as 1980, the USSR's citizens enjoyed 1 TV per 100 people. Compare that to today's global average of 55 per 100 people(could be higher by now).

Not to mention that forced atheism had absolutely nothing to do with the deaths you're citing : the whole part where there were civil wars and repressions under a totalitarian government caused these deaths. Oh, also famine.


I never claimed it was. TV is a medium through which information is spread - and it can be used to spread propoganda and words of soothing just the same way a priest can spread words of soothing - you thusly do not need to go to mass after a cataclysm to find you're not alone in your plight, and that things will work out eventually. It, just like preachings at the church is a way of keeping the masses at least somewhat in check, even at times of great oppression.
Let's not forget that it is easy for rich(or powerful) men to also buy up priests, and chose what the priest can and can not report. Priests are still people - I'm certain a priest will rather spread lies about supporting the new regime rather than see all of his followers shot by a band of killhappy KGB soldiers.

Absolutely unrelated to the Soviet Union being atheistic. More to do with the Soviet Union following an economic and political regime that just doesn't work.

If I were to use your own kind of reasoning, I could blame religion for half of Europe dieing out during the great plague of 1348-1350. But I'm not intending to be biased, so I will never claim such nonsense.

Mod edit: filtered unnecessary flame.

Mysth reply to mod edit : thanks for editing that word out for something more neutral, was a bit harsh indeed.

Mysthalin, religion has already been removed from most institutions, such as law, education and such. Of course, with past abuses from the church and other religious institutions, it's quite justified. However, there IS a side effect that we can observe, even now. The now common, indecency (Considering pass aspects), relations betrayal, and others are now accepted as humane in our society, in the excuse: They have their right to happiness. Even tough I know I am extrapolating on a scenario that could be unlikely, it's also very possible that, with the fact that we now accept those as normal, despite the fact they were repressed in olds days, that, in long term, we start to accept more "bad" precepts, again with the excuse: Their right to happiness. Being a matter of comparison that determines what's "good" and "bad", if we happen to live in a society where everything is equal, it would then lose his moral values and what we might consider his soul before anyone even notice.

Having a need to be able to furnish an explanation to our creation is nothing more than following our mere human nature. In the sense that it only reflects our limited lifespan, as well as  the fact that time is the only one that will ever have a domination on us, therefore making us wonder about our start and ends.

And, a more personal question to end: What do you have faith in, Mysthalin?
Science, due to it's comparative ways, shall never be able to explain the very nature.
As for humanity, it is doomed as the current tendency in the universe is to entropy, evolution being a "soubresaut" in history.
 

I think you should separate Religion from Catholicism at this one, as until that time no other religion practiced such dismal health ideas. The Romans in conjunction with their beliefs and science built wonders that still blow our minds today. It wasn't till the rise of Christians not religion that we fell apart. Due to that alot of the various religions get ignored/bad press due to one giant failure

Also with a pure science point of view, alot of people i know use science especially the "love doesn't exist its just a chemical reaction" to give an excuse to commit adultery, sleep around and be just all around DB's

Hi CubanLynx, please don't smurf on the forums, it isn't allowed.

Sorry thats a computer in another place and when I used to play Eir ages ago. Its locked into that account and I didn't realise.

I agree SX - Religion has more or less so been seperated from government institutions : which kind of ilustrates my point. Though, back in medieval times - religion was a basic necessity if society were to survive.

Indecency, betrayal - things that hurt others can not be considered a person's "right to happiness". No matter what - if today's society is to keep humane, we need to follow our human rights - but by that we also must take note that other people have the exact same rights. In other words - live by the same old principle that religion preached : "Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you". If people themselves aren't capable of upholding these simple rules - today's law institutions can make sure they do.

The need to know isn't as much human nature as it is simple curiosity. Me myself - I'd love to find out how the universe came to be, and what was there before that - but I know that there is no current theory that has been fully proven. Thusly, I simply don't make that much of a deal about something that I simply can't find out. If we'll know - fine, if we don't.. Well, we don't know now - and we're doing fine as is.

What do I have faith in? I have faith in myself : that by my own wit and cunning I can achieve whatever I want or need. I have faith that I can eventually (help) make the world a better place for everyone. I quite frankly just believe in myself.
Science - I generally do believe in it. Not everything claimed by scientists is always true - but science never claims that what it says will be true forever. Scientists even agree nowadays  that just because all water molecules that have been analyzed thusfar have the formula H2O doesn't mean that we can't find something that is absolutely exactly like water, but with a different formula. So.. I guess what I'm trying ot say is that I have faith in progress and change.
As for whether I have faith that there is an intangible entity watching over us(God) - no, I do not have faith in that. It hasn't been proven, nor has it been disproven. I will not claim that God most definitely doesn't exist, but I'm merely more of the opinion that he doesn't.

Mysthalin the mindset that atheism brought i.e. materialistic goods are worth more than human life led to these deaths in Russia and China. The plague was not cause by the mind set of religious people, so your not really following my line of thought. The famine on the other had was caused by dileberate neglect of farm lands so that the atheistic leaders could pursue their own goals.



Ever heard the saying "there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole?"

However, you would agree with me that more instance where ancient beliefs have been controverted are due to the "right to happiness". Such as a men betraying his wife, while external views might say: He has the "right to happiness" with the other women. Or homosexual acceptation, that have also been placed under the "right to happiness" of all individuals. If the tendency continues, we might as well say that we will accept more and more precepts that were considered as bad in the past, leading to the situation I've described earlier on.

Except that, Cuban, communism is about completely negating your own personal wealth for the good of the society. It has nothing at all to do with religion, stop making it seem like it's at all related. People in Russia died because they were shipped off to Syberia, they were shot by the KGB - because the politicians didn't want those people around. Not because atheism was forced. You should also not foget that Christianity wasn't destroyed completely in the USSR - it was just "better" to accept atheism. Nazi Germany was also catholic - yet millions of people died there as well. It's absolutely UNRELATED to religion. I can give you tons of other Catholic leaders that ensured the deaths of thousands of people in pursuit of their own goals - it is simply unrelated to religion(Like, let's say the leaders of all the religious Orders(Templars, Teutons). They were all very much so Catholic).

Let's also not forget the countless civil wars that happened in various Catholic countries, under Catholic leaders - who also pursued their own personal gain. Let's say, for instance - the War of the Roses(you must have heard of that one).

@SX23
No, I don't. Homosexuality and having multiple wives or sex partners existed long before Christianity. I do agree that being untrue to your spouse hurts the spouses feelings(and therefore is unacceptable) - but do remember that you are actually punished by law if you have several wives, and you may well be forced to pay allimony if you divorce your current wife after she found out you were with a hooker.

Being homosexual, on the other hand, doesn't really hurt anyone. It's that person's right to choose - if he enjoys having sex with people of his own sex - let him. As long as he doesn't force you to have sex with him - it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable. If you can't stand someone being homosexual - well, then that is just sad, and you should learn a thing or two about tolerance.

And no, Cuban - I've never heard of the saying, and I have no idea what it means. Nor do I particularly care - biased sayings are more or less so useless to any discussion.

How is making material goods your aim not going to affect your outlook on human life? Once again you totally ignore my point and just say no your wrong without providing a decent reason.

Yes there have been men who were Catholic and who caused death, but that is directly against what they are supposed to believe.

No, Nazis German was not Catholic. Hitler and his group were staunch pagans.

Communism has everything to do with religion. Religion is its main contender since religion, well my one anyway, has always said that there must be limits on government. Communism is against this.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now because its not getting anywhere since you are not hearing me out. You don't even read what I written properly and then you go off on some tangent about what you think I've written.

Your right Computer this thread is getting stupid.

You're the one completely disregarding what I say, and screaming foul when I counter your points.

I never said anything about material goods not affecting your outlook on human life - I was talking about how society wouldn't be as shell-shocked to it's foundations if religion were to disappear, as opposed to the middle ages. We don't need religion as much to maintain social order because we now have a strong enough law system to prevent anarchy, without the need of fear for retribution from a higher entity to keep people in check.

"Supposed to believe" - ideals are never fullfilled, which is my point. They either fail from the start, or somewhere along the way. It is due to one simple reason : they're ideals. Meaning, they're only possible if people were perfect. A perfect Christian would never as much as hurt a fly - but you're never going to find one. Humans have never been perfect - and they likely never will be. If you looked at communism in it's theory (As Marx and Engels thought of it) - it's probably the best form of government ever to have been concieved by man. But the simple truth is that man is not capable of fulfilling this dream.
So what I'm saying is : stop painting Christianity in a light of perfection, while anything that we say in a light of pure gloom. Take all of the facts at face value.

Read up on some memoirs from some WW2 german soldiers that survived the war, will you? You'll find there were quite a lot of nazis on the front line that were staunch Catholics.
Leaders are very rarely strong believers in a faith - if they were, they'd more or less so be useless as leaders : you would not want a king that "turns the other cheek" when his lands are being taken from him. So yeah - saying Hitler didn't believe and thusly all of Nazi Germany didn't is a logical flaw right there.

No, Christianity didn't begin contending the government until Gregory VII claimed that he is higher than Emperor Henry IV. Yet again - it's not Communism as a theory that dienies Christianity. It's the strand of Totalitarism that could be found in the Soviet Regime, which clashes with the Church's sphere of interests that does. Otherwise, Communism's theories bear little to no conflict with religion.

If you wish to stop - it's your choise. I read you out fine, and refute your points. If you don't see that - it's your loss. If you think you're being misunderstood - then try and express yourself better.

@Computer - if you don't have anything to add to the discussion, just keep it to yourself.

Tbh a religion discussion shouldn't even take place on a forums....Go take this to a PM. you seem to be only arguing with Cublynx unless you're trying to prove something to everyone else i think a PM would be the best place for this :P

Fuck this shit, im gonna create me own religion!

Ownd

Congrats now you have just lowered yourself to the standards of Ron L Hubbard

or jesus christ...

Or maybe you just need to take a break from this thread.

Jesus was just a man, he wasn't the one who promoted his name all over the bible blame the Roman Emperor Constantine

No u

Computer, if you can't be mature for 2 post, well I'd rather have you don't post at all.

That said, it's an open discussion, if you want to take part in it, fine. If you want to screw it up, get the fuck out.

Right, if you don't like this thread - then just don't look at it. Those who are posting in it in a mature and consise manner are actually enjoying this discussion. You can have your own beliefs, likes and dislikes - but please don't sabotage this thread just because you dislike it. It's not exactly doing anything to hurt you.