|
The Debates: Issue #1 - Religion (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PunkA$$ |
me, i'm a dyslexic atheist.
i don't believe in an all knowing, all seeing, omnipetent dog |
|
|
| biznology |
another specific problem i have with organized religion, and specifically Christianity here, is the whole 'if you dont believe you are going to hell.' i find that preposterous. what if YOU (who follow Christianity) are wrong? where will you go? i think its quite obvious that since there is NO concrete evidence a God exists beyond FAITH, and there is more than ONE type of religion that people shouldnt go around saying if you dont believe, its your ass! if i dont believe in your hell, how can i go there? all you do is believe in it, its not like you are the gatekeeper deciding who gets in and who doesnt.
i think that having faith or believing in a God should be for yourself, not so you can tell others how to live their lives...late/ |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I wish some of you would put have a thought next time into baseless statements. I am sure this thread is full of them all ready, but here are just some that poked at me to much:
first, Thor's first post said:
| quote: |
The holy wars/crusades were wars being fought under 'gods' name, no different from Roman invasions of other countries. Yet to their own people they wrote it off to 'helping' bring people to their god.. |
Look Sir, I don't know what you were told about the Christian Killing Romans who latter corrected there ways and became Christians Killing Romans. But all I know is that before Emperor Constantine and the forced numero uno religion of the Empire to be Christianty after he himself converted to Christianty in 306AD the Roman people did not war for their 'Gods'. Sure it would please the God's and all... but they would follow the orders under the Proconsuels and Emperors of the time. In fact for that day in age with few exceptions such as in the proviences of Jeduah (which they had a hard time with since they believed in that one-God BS) the Romans by far went out of their way to respect the cultural integrity and religions of the people they had conquered. By initially allowing them the right to self rule and respect they were able to intergrate them into their society and its customs further into the future with much more ease then it would have been if they were not respective of their traditions. In fact only once the Roman Empire became Chrsitian (which lead to its fall since the Christians hated the Barbarians chornically, which was a bad idea since they made an everly increasing part of their army) did religion come more to play a role into the factors of ruling the Empire. Before all the Emperors had to worry about was to let people be and to make sure to contribute an odd deniar or two to the temples. The army was subordinate to the Emperor or the Proconsuel, and knew that they were either fighting for the glory of room or the booty of war as was customary with professional armies.
Ok next error correction, you stated above that the Holy Wars/Crusdades were being fought under 'gods' name. Well this quote from someone else or you I'm not sure, it said:
| quote: |
Yeah, I always enjoy pointing that out. Well a principle element of Christianity is "Thou Shalt Not Kill," Christianity is responsible for millions of deaths. The crusades wiped out millions, all because beliefs differed.
|
And this just got to me as stupidity. I a sure you that the crusades (A) did not wipe out millions (try a closer to a million on for size, even though I think that number itself is quiet large) (B) were not fought over some silly petty belief differences.
I love the Arab case for the Crusades.. it makes them seem so innocent. In the past few months I have heard so many arguments about the Crusades as being the Christians intent to takeover the Muslim world.. and how evil they were. But in reality this is like saying in the News 'A man shot an unarmed man just because he hated him', when the actual story is more like 'A man shot a man who held a hostage with a gun to her head and said 'I'll shot', but then after getting shot said 'Oh no I didn't mean it I was just kidding'. Ok I am trying to make an analogy here (altough a bad one at that) as to how it really was. Did you ever give deep consideration into the thought that perhaps the Christians were content in warring amoungst themselves in Dark Age Europe and would have prefered it to gearing up, setting ship, and killing some people in the Middle East instead?
Well perhaps they would have continued that. But after all if the Muslims had not so brutally taken over Jerusalem... slaughtered the christian piligrims left and right from Turkey to the Jerusalem as they were making their crossing and pilgrimage to the holy sites. Perhaps if the Muslims would have respected other religions, and their right to worship and visit other holy sites they could have avoided the whole conflict, apperantly this concept was so mind boggling for them.. which is understandable of course them being Arab Muslims and all (I kid) :p
I am just sick of that argument... the fact is that they were slaughtering the pilgrims to Jerusalem and across the Arab lands and did not allow them to worship. The crusades were organized by the Pope of the time as a way to get all the christians to stop fighting themselves and fight someone else for a change, and to escort and protect the Christians right to pilgrimage and visitation to the Holy Sites. Of course the Christians came in and did a very bad job... but thats how it was back then.
Ok last correction which I found ridiciulously funny! Fir3start3r thank you for so carefully embracing us with your flamming idiocy. You said:
| quote: | | But I will say this. Bush is right. The founding fathers of the USA were all God-fearing, righteous men with a strong sense of liberty, peace and justice for all. It's written in their laws and even on their own money. Why should he turn his back on the very foundation his own government believes in for a small minority? |
First of all your first statement is blazing wrong. Not all the Founding farthers were God-fearing, in fact many were not God-fearing at all. Thomas Jefferson that man that wrote some delecration of something or another was basically an atheist. Here I have some of his quotes to prove this to you as well:
| quote: |
"Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies."
"Certain teachings in the Bible are as diamonds in a dung-heap".
Thomas Jefferson
|
Of course you could say.. "Ok most of the founding fathers were religious" but then I'd have to go find some more sources and disprove you again, so please spare us.
God is written in many laws in our land that is true, but he is not wirtten in the LAW OF THE LAND, the US Constitution! Not one mention of God in there. Hmm sort of strange it coming from a group of 'God-fearing' folk.
Oh what's that you say? More stupidity? No you don't say...? What yes you do? Really? No!.. oh, oh yes you do... In God We Trust has always been on our money eh? It was on the money of our founders.. it must have always been there right?! Absolutely wrong. Don't believe me? You can check out what your own Treasury Department says (these are the guys who coin and mint them with that phrase) The Link
Or in brief it says this; They came up with the idea to put God We Trust on the money in 1861. And only since 1908/9 has the motto been in continuous use on the US coins.
Ok sorry.. but I have to try and save this board form all the ignorant remarks and blazing idiocies when it comes to history. Opinions are all good, but fact is fact.
Yoepus
Artificial intellegence is no match for natural stupidity. |
|
|
| Thor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Now I may have said that Bush was right, but I never did say I agreed with it now did I?
There seems to be some great assumtion here.
I'm not saying this to appease the two obvious atheists/agnostics here, just stating facts about a country and it's beliefs.
There no need to finger point in a debate or get personal here.
I'm stating Bush's beliefs and facts here people and the country he serves.
If you feel threatened then phone HIM and explain is to HIM; I didn't attack anyone here, rather I was asked for my opinion.
It's fine that some may not agree with the most powerful country in the world but just because I state facts does not call for the hissings or personal derision.
I asked a question whether or not Bush should turn his back on the foundation of his government, and got no clear answer, hoping that I'd get a interesting answer and I get attacked.
I stated that religion is very much integrated into politics; this is true (there's no debate here, if you really want support I'll give it).
Someone wanted a debate. There's no right or wrong in a debate; that's why it's a debate.
I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong here.
My suggestion is if you can't help but get personal then leave the arguement or act like a mature human being.
Will you always like what you read? No.
Do I agree with everything everyone says? No.
Nor should you here.
Read with a grain of salt. ;) |
You are right, I did mis-read a bit about what you said :D Sorry man!
But you did say Bush was right, I mean how can he exclude a minority if he was to become a leader of a country that supports minorty rights?? Thats what my problem is with him, he has the right to his beliefs, but to say that athiests/agnostics don't have any rights is ridiculous.
| quote: | | Why should he turn his back on the very foundation his own government believes in for a small minority? |
He doesn't have to turn his back, just do what his country is based on, the support for minortiy rights!
| quote: | | How do I know this? I've been to a business meeting where a political figure spoke and they answered a question regarding religion in politics. |
You've been to a meeting! Wow, so have you recieved a doctorate ;) Sorry for the sarcasm, but you can't call yourself an expert over hearing one guy speak about the integreation. I agree that religion is more intwined with Politics, but it shouldn't be. Anyone who thinks seperation of church/state is a bad idea, I am very weary of.
| quote: | | And oh yea...no one has ever built a statue of a critic... |
Just had to mention again, there are tons of people who would figure into that catergory of 'critic' that have statues built of them.
I don't get the meaning of it though, are you saying criticism of religion is bad? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
just a simple logical argument the christian folk who believe Atheists are bad people:
Do you believe that all Christians are good people because they are christians?
Then why do you believe that all Atheists are bad people since they don't believe in a God?
The argument as you notice points to a fact that your belief has little to do many times with the fact that you are or are not a Good or Bad person.
Thank you,
Yoepus
The Israelites were all waiting anxiously at the foot of the mountain, knowing that Moses had had a tough day negotiating with god. Finally a tired Moses came into sight. "I've got some good news and some bad news, folks," he said. "The good news is that I got Him down to ten. The bad news is that adultery's still in." |
|
|
| Devbert |
Crusades are defined as:
Expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.
I'm not justifying what the Christians or the Muslims did. I'm just saying that each believed that the Holy Places were their's rightfully, and that force was the only way to reclaim them, thus resulting in many deaths.
I also never said the reasons were petty.
As for an accurate number of deaths, I would definitely guess over a million.
8 Crusades in all. The first, 1095-1101, the second, 1145-47, the third 1188-92, the fourth where Constantinople fell 1204, the fifth 1217, the sixth involved two instances 1228-29 and 1239, the seventh 1249-52, and the eigth 1270.
Over all this time, I'm almost certain that the fatalities on each side combied exceeded over 1 million.
"Ok sorry.. but I have to try and save this board form all the ignorant remarks and blazing idiocies when it comes to history. Opinions are all good, but fact is fact. "
Gee. Thanx. You've done a great job. I feel saved now.
To conclude, I never argued about the purpose of the crusades, or who was right or wrong. I just stated the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the most deeply rooted Christian commandments, and overtime, Christianity has been the cause for a lot of killing. |
|
|
| Thor |
Wow, you miss my point. Religion christian/muslim doesn't matter, it brought wars because of belief. I'm not saying the Crusades weren't justified, the Muslims left no choice. But the point I guess I didn't make clear was the no matter the justification, killing for your god has been a popular pastime for 1000's of years.
You can call me baseless, but you also read a little too much into what I said and lets just say ran with it :D
The mention of the Roman empire invading and comparing it to holy wars/crusades was that one was based on God (christians/muslims) the other was based on wealth/control... I quite admire the Roman empire, its downfall was when constantine made the Roman empire christian, which I recall was the period when Roma had lost most of its influence and the western Roman empire was all but done with thanks to the Goth/barbarian re-claiming their territory and defeating Romans to the brink of defeat.
Its funny but what you said to refute what I said was something I agree with fully. I love to see people who actually have learned something about this era since its effects on history are so important. But I think you mis-understood my meanings, and calling it baseless, when in fact it is not. You are not the only one who knows Ancient history, please don't assume I have no clue about it either :D
The second quote was not from me, only the first one... |
|
|
| Devbert |
| The second quote was mine, and as you said, you haven't read the entire thread, so don't jump to conclusions about statements which you don't fully understand the context of. Trying to belittle people when you admittingly don't have all the information is just ingnorant. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Gosh you call a few people stupid and they get all angry about it.. who would have known? :conf: :p heheh
No but Thor it was a baseless claim as you did not back it up with anything. You just said they were similiar, I said they were far from similar. Other then being fought I can't see how similar they really were. As a generalization the Romans did not fight for God, the Chrisitans did. And I also believe that Christianity was a leading cause of collapse of the Roman Empire.. but I'm to lazy to get to an indepth anaylisis of that so you'll have to take my workd for it... Plus Thor already agrees with me here:toothless
Devbert, I have read all the thread. Secondly I do understand the statements. Of course there are no exact numbers on the people killed durning the cursades, but if you try and figure out how many people did live in land the Cursades took place, and size of the armies that were involved in the countless sorties more then a million over the periods you stated is quiet high. Further more you can consider other wars such as the internal conflict in the Bytazine empire (which you call the Cursades 5-8), as well as the Muslim invasion of the Bytazine empire durning this time of which many western Christians were urged to fight for and protect (though little really did).
But once again you are right.. it all could have been avoided. Previouly Christians were allowed to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Had they been continued to access such Holy sites this could have been avoided. Of course when the Chrisitans took over the holy site they did not grant Muslim pilgrims much benifits either.. but the game didn't start with them...
But oh well I see the point you were trying to make you said
| quote: | | just stated the fact that "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the most deeply rooted Christian commandments, and overtime, Christianity has been the cause for a lot of killing. |
Well see this is all nice and true but once again the facts are wrong. This is a deelpy rooted Judiac commadment. All the commandments are Judiac in that they came from the Old bible, so indeed not only do the Christians believe in this but also Jews.. and Muslims too. However it has been greatly misinterpurted. Since in the orginal hebrew it reads "Thou shalt not Murder". After all in War you are not murdering someone you are killing them.. and you can accidently kill someone too.. or you can kill someone in self defense. Of course killing someone in cold blood is Murder...Sure it is a slip of words, but this allows for a very nice loop-hole out if you'd ever like to kill someone who is throwing a handgernade at you.
Yoepus
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. |
|
|
| Devbert |
True, but from what I've read, armies ranged in size from a few thousand to up to 20,000. And there were multiple armies moving at a time, and fighting went on adding up to decades. So it is definitely possible.
And yes, you have corrected my slip in words.
Old testament pal, not Old bible.
:D Right back at ya slugger :D |
|
|
| Devbert |
| End of this debate??? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Oh what's that you say? More stupidity? No you don't say...? What yes you do? Really? No!.. oh, oh yes you do... In God We Trust has always been on our money eh? It was on the money of our founders.. it must have always been there right?! Absolutely wrong. Don't believe me? You can check out what your own Treasury Department says (these are the guys who coin and mint them with that phrase) The Link
Or in brief it says this; They came up with the idea to put God We Trust on the money in 1861. And only since 1908/9 has the motto been in continuous use on the US coins. |
Ok, I never mentioned it always being on the money for one and second it's not MY money or Treasury Department, surely an intellectual would have noticed that I'm not from the USA. Thanks for the history lesson. And since this link actually has good references for this side of the debate I'll post it.
"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:
Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins....
As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:
Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.
A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.
| quote: | | Ok sorry.. but I have to try and save this board form all the ignorant remarks and blazing idiocies when it comes to history. Opinions are all good, but fact is fact. |
You're right! Fact is fact. Sure Christains have killed. What religion hasn't under their own banner? But the fact remains that the crusades were hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Not as early has Sept.11.
I don't remember anyone here saying that Atheists were bad people? WHERE did that come from?? :rolleyes:
As far as that Bush comment goes...where the heck is the source to that statement anyways? You're right Thor, I'm finding it hard to believe that he would even say anything like that as well. But is that quote is from the OLD Bush anyways?
Ok, so not all the founding fathers were Christians or God fearing. I admit defeat in not being 100% accurate and therefore must be stupid!:rolleyes:
Will no one answer my question without skirting the issue?
I'll rephrase the question I guess.
Now lets all have a momentary state of disbelieve (lol..that should be easy for the agnostics...;)).
Should a President be basing his countries decisions on the feelings of a small minority?
Whomever that minority should be; not necessarily a religious minority either...
I guess I might as well have a quote too... ;)
The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker. -- Voltaire |
|
|
|
|
