Theory; Religion Will Die Away With Science and Evolution

I fail to see where you find benefit in subservience. Would not the ultimate compliment be emulation, rather than kowtowing and needless sacrifice?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure how this takes the question of censorship into a purely theological (as opposed to political) framework

so any conflict in the region is automatically attributed to religion (as opposed to the standard plight for resources that has governed conflict for the past several thousand years anywhere in the world) simply because the residents are religious?
Hell even the contributors in the American civil war were religious .....

add in a vested interest of a foreign power in "trading" on the countries natural resources and you have a more complete geopolitical picture

The causes for the problems there are complex, but your inability to weigh in America's fiddling with the national politics of the place certainly highlights your clear bias

If you think its valid to relegate any conflict that occurs on a religious minded backdrop as inherently a conflict of religion, I think you have to go back to the drawing board in your debating efforts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't fathom a benefit to being subservient to road rules governing which side of the road to drive on?

Emulation is only a requirement for the envious

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"the one with the us and them mentality."

Can't you read or something. I was quoting you. DOH.

Really, or patronise you? 'There there Lori, I'm sure god did tell you to do that.'

Except you don't actually talk to god, it's a mental aberration.

Like fuck it does.

 

Because if there weren't people ready to go rioting in the streets, applying machetes and pitchforks to people that don't share their beliefs, there'd be no reason for that censorship in the first place. This isn't a matter of government sanctioned political censorship, as you're trying to play it off as. It is, simply, religious people willing to KILL those who will not accept their view of things affecting the world around them through fear. Like, you know... savages.



so any conflict in the region is automatically attributed to religion (as opposed to the standard plight for resources that has governed conflict for the past several thousand years anywhere in the world) simply because the residents are religious?
Hell even the contributors in the American civil war were religious .....[/QUOTE]

So we're supposed to ignore a major contributing factor to worldwide unrest, because religion has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with people's behaviour? Seen Westboro Baptist Church lately? I'm sure they're quite reasonable people, really, and they don't even kill people.

Well, since I'm clearly an idiot, why don't you explain to me how any of a dozen other things tenuously related to the discussion at hand bear repeating over and over while ignoring the part of the problem I pointed out... Continue holding your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA.. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" Deflection, misdirection, and finger-pointing to draw attention away from the complete and utter lack of credibility in your arguments. If you think it's valid to ignore religion as a stumbling block on the path to peace and prosperity, and the root of thousands of human-rights violations, not just today, but throughout history, then YOU, sir, do not understand that which you espouse.

Also, there is nothing to be gained from grovelling, you simpering twat. Stand on your own two feet. I don't need to have faith in a god, because I have faith in myself.

 

There are some things I don't understand about envy toward God.

Nobody envies the British Queen. Because she is a category of her own.

One can envy those whom one can relate to, those who are similar enough to oneself - who had in roundabout the same abilities and opportunites, but who made more of them than oneself. This is why highschool reunions are such a hot spot for envy.

But how can one envy someone (in this case, God) who is in a completely different category than oneself, who has completely different abilities and opportunities?

I mean, one would somehow have to see oneself in the same category with the British Queen, or God, in order to envy them ... that would require some serious vanity and delusions of grandeur, would it not?

 

Here's the things:

You are basically saying that Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Pope Benedict XVI, your Christian neighbors, and all the nasty Talibans are all part of the same group.

This is strange, don't you think?

 

They are all part of the same group. And when religions have political power, they are called dictatorships. Religion is the source of dictatorship, as they postulate a higher power to which one must obey, without question, or even thought.

 

Not particularly. Great people are often insane in their own ways, be it through egomania, a delusion that guides them to a lofty goal, or what have you. I must agree with YoyoPapaya's earlier sentiment that belief in a magic man in the sky who will give you a cosmic spanking if you're not good seems pretty insane to me.

There's a thin line between those who do great things for their beliefs, and those who do terrible things for their beliefs.

 

one of the most enduring crackpots on this forum but never recognized as one. yes, your post is very strange.

Gandhi did not advocate violence. people who are resisting violence doesn't mean that they are advocating violence. what would you have people do? nothing? just sit back and let people do whatever they want to you?

please, no need to answer that as it is obvious to anyone sane.

 

Its difficult to indicate any ideology that people haven't killed or been willing to die for once it reaches the stage of national identity.
IOW its the nature of any political structure, once there is enough numbers behind it.

I think its more pertinent to ask why one ignores the obvious political issues that contribute to worldwide unrest ... unless you have some valid explanation how the Crochet class at 4pm at your local church hall on a Wednesday is a thinly veiled attempt to kill dissidents.

You're right.
Clearly you are an idiot.
:shrug:

 

What, pray tell, was the religious group that empowered Mao? Or Stalin? Or Polpot?

 

I think you answered your own question. We don't think of communism but these dictators who demanded the same kind of worship as the previous Czars or Emperors (and deliberately capitalized on that fact). It's not at all certain that other communists like Trotsky would have been so brutal. But the model of these dictators was that of a religious figures, they carried out crusades, they hunted heresy, they promised scientific miracles in agriculture and industrialization, and their will could not be questioned.

 

I never said that the other causes weren't there, but that they were not a part of this discussion. You're not defending your stance, you're trying to deflect blame. Imagine how much better our current political structures could be without religious differences being one more thing to take into consideration. As the human population climbs, it's really an extraneous stretch to have to take into consideration what people think of others imaginary friends.

As for the 4pm knitting club, that's fine, that's great, let the old biddies knit their fingers off. Those aren't the people I'm talking about, and you know it. Once again, you're using non-arguments to try and deflect attention from the issue.

Also, A. Your sarcasm detector is broken. B. You are wrong.

 

so you are trying to say that religion is the basis of dictatorship because even when a dictator comes to power totally divorced (and in fact opposed) from any sort of religious support, its simply their attempt to follow in the footsteps of previous religious dictators?
:crazy:

 

The standard categories for opulence in this world are fame, strength, beauty, intelligence, renunciation and wealth (combinations of these translate into what we might coin as "successful" or "influential" or "powerful").

Any one who has more of any of these than one's self is a potential candidate for envy (materially speaking) .
Since God not only out does anyone else but is the prime reservoir of how these attributes are defined , materially speaking he is a prime candidate for envy.

Hence, in one sense, its envy which is the number one binding force to this world.

 

Perhaps I am missing something, but personally, I cannot relate to your explanation.
I am in no way saying that I am not envious, because I am envious, in subtle and gross ways.

It's just that people and other beings who seem really a lot more advanced or special than me in some way, I perceive as being in a completely separate category as myself, and as such, I do not think I could ever have what they have.
While envy implies that one thinks oneself capable of having what others have.


(Perhaps this explains this, though: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls:
She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up - and the higher the girls' IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than giving up.

Why does this happen? What makes smart girls more vulnerable, and less confident, when they should be the most confident kids in the room? At the 5th grade level, girls routinely outperform boys in every subject, including math and science. So there were no differences between these boys and girls in ability, nor in past history of success. The only difference was how bright boys and girls interpreted difficulty - what it meant to them when material seemed hard to learn. Bright girls were much quicker to doubt their ability, to lose confidence, and to become less effective learners as a result.

Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.
)

 

That's a false argument. One need not be subservient to a false deity (they can't ALL be right) in order to have strong moral or legal codes.

~String

 

All he makes is false arguments. He's not once addressed an actual point.

 

Apparently.

~String