Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Such as their unprovoked 2010 attack, killing S. Koreans. I would have missed this connection if you hadn't pointed it out. And it opens a huge pandora's box, dating back to the deification of pharoahs, kings and caesars.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Yes, exactly. What about the divine right of kings? The Czar of Russia was considered divine, and not in the John Waters way.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    A long time before Constantine:

    He is speaking of bishops of a "catholic" church a long time before the Bible (as we know it) even existed.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Now watch someone come out with a flick depicting Ivan the Terrible in drag.

    That connection is equal in magnitude to the disconnection made by the thesists here!

    and yet... the reciprocal of connectedness...hmm..

    x = 1/x? :bugeye:

    x must equal 1!

    +1 spidey!
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    You didn't read Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism" that I linked you to, did you.
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Do you know what you are seeing with?
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    B.G. 4.7...

    In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

    I thought I did.
    We are part and parcel of Him.
    Minute spiritual particles of the one spirit.

    To realise that we are a part of Him, and go back to Him.


    In essence, we are identical to Him, the difference being infinite and finite.

    The thing is, do we know how to pray to God?

    All souls are part and parcel of God, all life is alive because they are souls dressed up in their conditional state (body).

    It's pointless going into the omni-stuff.

    Who said He doesn't care about us?
    Do we care about us?

    No, I mean the Master of nature.
    We are a blend of spirit and matter, a union between God and material nature.

    The former.

    What is this in relation to.

  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    This is the sound of one hand fapping.

    Those would be my eyes; but it is my visual cortex that renders the images and my mind that interprets them. What not-quite-esoteric point would you like to raise from this?
  13. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    I am willing to consider this. So tell me, why do you think this statement is true [so that I may consider whether I sould consider it true/false/undecided.

    So, do good, live a happy life, die in peace. Is that the central message?

    I meant that I am undecided and agnostic about a deistic god, but that is considered pragmatic atheism.

    What? Poetic again or just a contradiction? What or how is there a difference if we are indentical [not just similiar to him] and how is it both infinite and finite?

    My 2 cents would be to enjoy your personal and spiritual experiences.
    What is your opinion on how to pray?

    Again, poetry treads on science. We know that living things dont need anything materistically special to be alive. Do you mean that some sort of soul is inserted into a bunch of matter once it is in a life-sustaining organisation [like a cell]?

    Phew. Thanks for agreement to being apathetic. But tell me, why do you consider it to be pointless. I do so because I consider it to be possible but irrelevant.

    No, I meant he doesn't care about just us. And what is the relevance of us caring about ourselves? Of course humans are also humanitarians. But a lion is not. If god cares for both, why would be personally care for or interfere or help in your life [and thereby deprive the lion of a meal]? Statistically, lions are much more important that humans [they are very few in number by comparision]. So the problem is this - God either cares about all living things equally or he doesnt care about any. Why should be give us, humans, any special partisanship? What we have discovered about our world and the universe tends to tells us that if He existes, he doesnt care about us.

    Hmm... Cant really argue with that. My [and human] knowledge as well as counter-arguments are too sketchy at present to dispute that.

    Then what of the problem of evil?

    I meant that there is no discovery of God by some divine knowledge inspired by God, what we know and can know is only but the use of human thought.
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2012
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    It's not a claim, it's a response to your question, now it's for you to ponder on it or not.

    No. The central message is, get back to your original state.


    It means that ''qualitively'' we are the same, but ''quantitively'' different.

    Why seek my opinion when scriptures are full of prayers?

    This is beyond science.
    Living things are ''conscious'', and consciousness, according to any scripture is a symptom of the soul. Once the soul leaves the body, the body is no longer conscious, it is dead.

    I consider it pointless because it becomes a sticking point which get's us nowhere. If you stick to the notion that it is illogical, then you have effectively closed your mind to anything else, and your inqury aabout these things are devicive. IOW, you would have indirectly declared that God does not exist, period.

    Of course He cares, He creates and sustains the universe, where you have the freedom to act how you desire. Being here may not be in our ultimate interest, but we choose to be here, and we are being accomodated.

    I'm asking, to what extent do we care about ourselves?

    The lion is equipt to get his food, it's just not easy.
    That is the struggle for existence. The claim is that we are (all living beings) are spiritual by nature, and our nature is blissful, and happy, which is why we are always seeking satisfaction.

    How do you value importance?

    All living things are essentially part and parcel of God, so why wouldn't he care for all his parts and parcels?

    And what do we know about the universe?

    No one can dispute that.
    All anyone can do is accept or not accept it.

    What of it?

    Interesting, do you any links, or information that backs this up?

  15. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    I would choose not to do so. Note, I am not claiming your response was incorrect, but since we are not debating it I see no reason to think about it - it gives me no knowledge or happiness and it doesn't really solve any problems or help me in any way. So, this point is "not considered unless proven useful". You may find is help in your life, if so, pleae fo tell me.

    So, what about this life, what do we do about it? And what is the original state? Can you describe it in more detail than 'being with god'?

    Oh, so our spirtual parts are to God as a leaf is to a canopy?

    The scriptural deities seem to be unlikely to exist, hence their prayer may not be effective or proper ways to pray. I would prefer deep meditation and observance of myself rather than try and convince a deity to change his divine plan for me.

    It currently is. It will someday be explained, you can bet on that. The soul may be a emergent property, like a rainbow - there is not real bow of the rain, and the rain itself is just a collection of raindrops with certain structural rules applied. I think the soul may be similiar - raindrops are to rainbow as the human cells are to soul.

    Agreed. But do you consider it correct and acceptable that a person [or a child] show question, learn and explore God rather than just be indoctrinated by a religion?

    Sustain? I think we are pretty sure our current existence and sustainance is completely naturalistic. Do you mean sustains our soul rather than sustains the universe? And I said that "He doesnt care about JUST Us, of all the living things [and dominant species] in the universe'.

    We care about ourselves a lot - obviously, as I said, humans are humanitarians. We are the centre of our world. This is the Human planet. But what is the point you are making here?

    I would argue that humans have made their world blissful and happy [through civilizations] and that by nature we [and all living things] are violent and constantly suffering/struggling - though the goal indeed is satisfaction [and self-propogation]. It would seem like spirituality is a human concept [and maybe just a human construct] that naturally arises as a result of our easy lifestyle and evolutionary curiosity and pattern/answer seeking harwired into our brains.

    The greater the potential [for betterment, perfection or success], the greater the importance. So, even anthropocentricism aside, humans are the most important ones. But I meant that God would not be partisan - he would not interfere, even to help, in our personal lives.

    We would indeed care of ALL of his parts and parcels. But this means that He must be non-partisan, ergo, he would not interfere with or help us.

    A few things -

    Again, we cannot dispute it right now. But someday we will be sure and it won't be a matter or accepting or not - it will be the matter of knowing a certainty. Till then, we would have to take a tentative stance and since this is not practically useful for me, I would take the stance of No.

    If God is the source of all pleasure [and good things in general], and if God is the source of everything, so much so that we are tiny parts of him, where does evil, suffering and bad things come from? Why do they happen? Why does God not interfere [considering that it is a universal problem for all life and hence is a non-partisan intervention]?

    I think the burden of proof lies on you to tell me Why so and not on me to ask you why not - it is not my claim that there are no revelations, it is my opinon on the theist's [not your] claim that their religious truths are divinely inspired. I refuse to accept this because I have not seen anything that convinces me of this. But my sentence was indeed quite assertive - sorry for that.
    But anyway, it is my personal opinion, so please, convince me of what you believe.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Bells is right, of course. You've ducked and weaved and avoided any attempt at definition ever since you made the silly claim that atheists can't define religion.

    In fact, it is clearly you who cannot or will not define it.

    The trouble is that you, Jan, flip back and forth as convenient, picking and choosing which parts of your "scripture" are religious and which aren't. Given that you can't define "religious", it's little wonder that you have no consistent position to offer on the subject of which scriptures are to be followed and which are to be ignored. What it comes down to is just whatever suits your purposes at the moment.

    Which scripture says that?

    And is that one of the religious ones, or one of the optional ones?

    If we're already a part of Him, there's nowhere to go back to; we're already there. Think it through.

    Hey, guys! It turns out I'm God! Grouse.

    Oh wait. I'm also Jan Ardena. Drat!

    I thought the scripture said only human beings have souls. Is that one of the optional ones?

    Where did it all go wrong? When Zenu exploded the volcano and cast the thetans into human bodies? Oh wait - am I mixing my scriptures? Is that one of the optional ones?

    We need you to tell us which ones are the religious ones and which ones are the non-religious, optional ones.
  17. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    @ James - How did you quote multiple users? And how to use the multiquote?
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Why do you want someone to convince you?
  19. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    If you were Jan, you would understand - no really, I have talked with Jan [on the vicious circle of religion thread] about covincing. In a nutshell, I want convincing so that I can understand others and maybe change myself if I am convinced [and consider the other person's view better than my own].
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    That doesn't sound healthy, nor actually doable.

    Basically, you're stepping forward and chellenging people, claiming you want to be convinced, while at the same time, you are fiercely fighting back and defending your own position.
    It's like pulling the other person toward yourself with one hand, and pushing them away with the other.

    If you want to change yourself, or at least allow for change, surely you already have in place ideas about what "betterment" and "improvement" would mean for you, don't you? Why not follow those ideas?
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    James R,

    No she isn't.

    My claim is, atheist don't know what religion is, which is exemplified by the definition(s). And what is so silly about that claim? How can an atheist know what religion is?

    Nonsense. I defined it simply, and clearly to Bells, and pointed you towards it,
    but neither of you recognise what it is, because you don't know what it is, outside secular, proffessional, dictionary definitions. And now you're just avoiding the whole issue, by side tracking the discussion, by ad-hominem, or trying to use reverse psycology.

    You mean I don't buy the notion that God is a murderer, and the Bible explicitally instructs its readers, ''the religion people'' to go out and kill any homsexual you encounter, along with women and children, just for the sake of it?

    Nope. Those are the actions of explicit, modern, atheists, who want to put an end to all notions of God, and religion. You have no real reason why you need to go so far, as your lives aren't being compramised by them. You only know that you must act in this way, because the momentum is there.

    I'll tell you what, let me direct you to the very first book of the Bible, where God creates Adam.
    Before the Breath of life, Adam was just a dead form. Go figure.

    You're thinking in bodily terms, JamesR.
    I suggest you think it through.

    Parp! Parp!

    Chapter and verse please?
    Thanks in advance.

    What you need to do, is go and learn about what it is you so vehemently reject. IOW, it's time to stop thinking you're smart, rational, logical, and critical thinker, and become these things for real. It's time to try and be honest.

    Don't forget the chapter and verse, please.

  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Well, anybody can read a definition. If religion was not correctly defined in the dictionary, then the religious would have corrected the definition by now. They are, after all, the majority.

    Also, many atheists were previously members of a religion.

    Oh? Please give me a link or post number.

    And you claim you've explained what it is, outside secular, professional and dictionary definitions.

    Great! Just give me the post number and I'll take another look. Thanks, Jan.

    I thought it wasn't "just for the sake of it", but because homosexuality is apparently an abomination before God. You've already said that you, as an expert on religion, consider "homosexual acts" a sin. I guess you also agree that wearing clothes of two different cloths is a sin. Right? And eating crayfish, of course.

    I'm sure God had as many good reasons for banning crayfish as he had for banning homosexual acts.

    Do you think people who eat crayfish should be stoned, by the way? And if so, do you think that would amount to religiously-motivated violence?

    It's quite arguable, you know, as to whether religion is compromising the lives of atheists. Take religiously-motivated violence, for example. :scratchin:

    But Genesis is a fantasy. We know life didn't start with the spontaneous creation of Adam and a talking snake.

    I'm wrong? Ok then. I defer to your expertise on this. Can you point me to where the bible specifies the things that have souls? Is there such a chapter and verse at all? If not, where does this idea come from?

    The only thing I'm vehemently rejecting in this thread is the silly notion that violence can't be religiously motivated. You've got sidetracked. Do you intend to put any kind of argument on the topic any time soon?

    I find it ironic that you are telling me to try to be honest. I had a bit of a chuckle there.

    As for the rest, obviously you're trying to insult me. Is that what Jesus would do?
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member


    The problem, again, is that you are refusing any kind of distinction between religious and deific; that is, that only that which comes directly from God can be called religious. This isn't how religion is defined, period. If you want to say "deific", then that would be something you could discuss: trying to pin it on God, so to speak. But "religious" means something else altogether. I'm not sure where you and wynn got your playbooks from, but they're not correct in this setup.


Share This Page