The "God is Imaginary" blog - Page 3

April 10, 2008, 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

Orly? Let's talk about the raging violence between Islam and Hinduism in India. And the resulting millions of deaths. When someone is in the religious majority or is ALMOST in the religious majority and wants to be, they generally tend to try to push it on people. I think Buddhism and Shintoism are probably exceptions. However, I would like to point out that in Japan, Christians were heavily persecuted in the past for...wait for it...not being part of the MAJORITY religion. It's not a surprise. People tend to get into a sort of mob mentality. Like I said, it's not just the Christians who are guilty of it.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Why do Christians get persecuted for not being part of the majority of religion? Read that again and tell me how that makes any sense at all. You don't persecute a religion because it's not more mainstream; you popularize it.

Regardless, there are many religions out there, and I highly doubt a few religions being a bit more aggressive means that every religious person wants to push their religious ideals onto everyone else. Besides the three big religions, I can't see where it says in any other holy text to convert others who don't believe in the same things that you do.

Quote:

I think Catholicism is a little....hypocritical of divorce. They'll divorce you...but only if you pay them. That just seems strange. But I don't see what divorce has to do with happiness or anything having to do with this religious discussion. Marriage and love is too complicated a subject to try to dissect from a "this person is religious and this person isn't" type of viewpoint.

One can imply that if you have a divorce, it means that you're not happy living with the person you were with, and if you divorce several times, it must means you're not particularly happy being with a lot of people. Of course I realize that's only a part of it, but I'm not denying that it's relevant at all.

Quote:

Well, I personally think it's a little condescending and arrogant of you to call religious people "deluded" but whatever. I definitely hate whenever religion is used against gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, or scientific fact. I've had heated arguments about all of those issues with people. I just am trying to say that not ALL Christians think gays/abortionists are going to hell. There are many reasonable and intelligent Christians. Also, there are also many people who feel a certain way, which is NOT religiously motivated, on those issues. I know some people who are against gay marriage, not because of religion, but just because of personal convictions. Same with abortion and stem cell research. And as much as I want to throw up on my keyboard for typing this, those people are allowed to have those opinions. Some people earnestly believe that abortion is equivalent to murdering an innocent child (although, I can tell you if abortion were ever made illegal, I'd march the street protesting....but I digress...) Just because they hold those viewpoint, it doesn't necessarily make them stupid or ignorant (with a few exceptions...specifically creationism vs evolution...). They just have differing morals and opinions from yours.

I never said anything against the people that choose to go against gay marriages, stem cell research or abortion for non religious reasons. All I said was that religion is a bad reason against those things, particularly because it has no rational basis, as you've already conceded in past debates.

But think of it this way. If you're going to buy whatever some contradictory, violent and nonsensical book says and not even question the validity of it, or if you do, but choose to pick out the parts you want to hear, then you must be pretty deluded.

April 11, 2008, 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angelus-Mortis

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Why do Christians get persecuted for not being part of the majority of religion? Read that again and tell me how that makes any sense at all. You don't persecute a religion because it's not more mainstream; you popularize it.

Uh, you want to argue with history? Be my guest. I think you'll find it a losing battle, though. What I described actually happened. Christians were persecuted by Shintoists for not being part of the majority religion (aka: Shinto). Oh, and also, "State Shinto" was used to rally the population towards the Japanese military actions in World War II. Hmm...using a religion....to promote violence and fighting?! Why persecute when the religion is in the minority? Why not ask the Romans? They did the same. I could give you a long list of people who persecuted Christians (or other religions) even though they were in the minority. People are easily threatened by strange, new things. I'd also like to point out that you're looking at the workings of people through a very ethnocentric lens. Western religious philosophy and reasons for persecution differ from those in the east. Eastern mindset and philosophies are different from ours.

Quote:

Regardless, there are many religions out there, and I highly doubt a few religions being a bit more aggressive means that every religious person wants to push their religious ideals onto everyone else. Besides the three big religions, I can't see where it says in any other holy text to convert others who don't believe in the same things that you do.

By three major religions, I'm guessing you mean Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I can't really argue with that because I haven't really read any other religious texts other than the Bible and bits and pieces of the Quran. And yet, those religions that you say do not have violent holy texts are guilty of the same things at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism: persecuting others and pushing their beliefs on others. Hmmm. Perhaps...like I've been saying all along, it is the people who pervert the religion, and not the fault of the religious texts themselves. After all, Shinto isn't a violent religion by any means, and they persecuted others and pressured many to convert.

Quote:

One can imply that if you have a divorce, it means that you're not happy living with the person you were with, and if you divorce several times, it must means you're not particularly happy being with a lot of people. Of course I realize that's only a part of it, but I'm not denying that it's relevant at all.

Divorce happens for many reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't happy with the person. And there are many people who aren't happy with their spouse who don't get divorced. But that's kind of irrelevant. Just like the subject of divorce in a religious discussion.

Quote:

I never said anything against the people that choose to go against gay marriages, stem cell research or abortion for non religious reasons. All I said was that religion is a bad reason against those things, particularly because it has no rational basis, as you've already conceded in past debates.

To those who believe it, it has a rational basis. I bet some of your opinions are formed from different texts that you've read. Why are the texts you've read and borrowed ideas from any more valid than the Bible? All texts are riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Just because YOU say that basing morals off the Bible is illogical/irrational, it doesn't make it so. There is no universal or correct set of morals to which humans should adhere. It's all completely and utterly arbitrary. Tell me, why are your morals and beliefs more rational than those of people who use the Bible to justify what they do? For example: abortion. Many people who are prolife are also very religious and use the Bible as a moral guidelines. Why is your opinion more logical or rational than their opinion? I have a hint: it's not. The basis on which you've set your opinion is just as arbitrary. You can try to pull science out to support your view, but face it, you actually are terminating a potential life when you abort a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that.

Quote:

But think of it this way. If you're going to buy whatever some contradictory, violent and nonsensical book says and not even question the validity of it, or if you do, but choose to pick out the parts you want to hear, then you must be pretty deluded.

You keep repeating the same thing about the Bible, over and over and over. It's getting repetitive. It's not really as nonsensical as you like to portray it. In fact, I get the feeling you haven't actually read much (if any) of it. That makes any comments of yours on the Bible completely irrelevant. Because one cannot write a book review for a book that one has not read.

April 11, 2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

Uh, you want to argue with history? Be my guest. I think you'll find it a losing battle, though. What I described actually happened. Christians were persecuted by Shintoists for not being part of the majority religion (aka: Shinto). Oh, and also, "State Shinto" was used to rally the population towards the Japanese military actions in World War II. Hmm...using a religion....to promote violence and fighting?! Why persecute when the religion is in the minority? Why not ask the Romans? They did the same. I could give you a long list of people who persecuted Christians (or other religions) even though they were in the minority. People are easily threatened by strange, new things. I'd also like to point out that you're looking at the workings of people through a very ethnocentric lens. Western religious philosophy and reasons for persecution differ from those in the east. Eastern mindset and philosophies are different from ours.

I'm just saying it would make more sense if they persecuted Christianity if they wanted to get rid of it, and if they wanted to make it a majority, then they'd have no reason to persecute people who believe in Christianity and not Shintoism. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case though because they don't have a very good impression of foreigners. It's still there today.

But whatever. People don't make any sense at all.

Quote:

By three major religions, I'm guessing you mean Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I can't really argue with that because I haven't really read any other religious texts other than the Bible and bits and pieces of the Quran. And yet, those religions that you say do not have violent holy texts are guilty of the same things at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism: persecuting others and pushing their beliefs on others. Hmmm. Perhaps...like I've been saying all along, it is the people who pervert the religion, and not the fault of the religious texts themselves. After all, Shinto isn't a violent religion by any means, and they persecuted others and pressured many to convert.

The fact that certain religions have texts that tell people what to do makes it infinitely worse--at least it's not wrong to not convert others if you're from a different religion, but if you're not converting people and your religious text tells you to, then there's a problem with the religion. But one religion persecuting others without a text telling them to do so isn't really a big deal and won't prove your point. Because I already gave that example of Buddhism, and there are probably several other spirutual or naturalistic religions that don't do that to other people as well.

Quote:

Divorce happens for many reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean you aren't happy with the person. And there are many people who aren't happy with their spouse who don't get divorced. But that's kind of irrelevant. Just like the subject of divorce in a religious discussion.

Certain religions say divorce is wrong, and yet, the people from these same religions have divorces, particularly at a rate higher than people from secular societies do.

But if you're going to say that divorce happens for many reasons, then I could say that people consider themselves "happy" for different reasons, but unlike divorce, the concept of happiness is just about as subjective as the concept of "good". Just because you're happy doesn't necessarily mean you live a "better" life. It's not up to anyone to judge whether or not religious people are "happier" than non religious people, nor should non religious people stop being non religious just because religious people are "happier" than they are.

In other words, I don't think much of the fact that a study, bar its accuracy, says religious people are happier than non religious people. I would think it's because people can't accept reality the way it is, harsh or not, and need or want some comfort from the unknown.

Are you going to start believing in creationism just because some study says the majority of Americans believe in it, and it's being taught in place of science? Hell no. Are you going to start believing you're depressed and need drugs just because some study says more and more people are becoming depressed? No. At least I know I wouldn't. Such studies, particularly ones from the media are too generalized to apply to every single person on this planet, and you can only know through common sense.

Quote:

To those who believe it, it has a rational basis. I bet some of your opinions are formed from different texts that you've read. Why are the texts you've read and borrowed ideas from any more valid than the Bible? All texts are riddled with inconsistencies and flaws.

Actually, I don't base any of my morals off of any texts, holy or not. I base them off of the consequences and the probability of them happening. If any of the texts I've read happened to agree, it's a mutual thing. At the very least, if there was a contradiction or inconsistency, I'd be able to point it out. However, you've been missing out on something I've been saying all along, which is that the bible has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've read. Ever. And I never asked that any book have no flaws at all, only that there are few of them. Although that's probably because most of the books I read and ever cared about are math related, and are nearly clean from flaws--if they aren't, they'll write a better edition. But actually, that's a reason why certain books are more worthwhile. Because they are able to admit flaws when they've been made, and newer editions attempt to fix them. But no one ever attempts to fix the bible. It's remained just about as ridiculous (if not more so) as it ever was since it first appeared.

But do me a favor and read the Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, and try telling me it's riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Do that before you bother telling me that every text is riddled with inconsistencies and flaws again. I can tell you that it's been read by lots of people, and not even one of them to my knowledge was able to find a flaw in it.

Quote:

Just because YOU say that basing morals off the Bible is illogical/irrational, it doesn't make it so. There is no universal or correct set of morals to which humans should adhere. It's all completely and utterly arbitrary. Tell me, why are your morals and beliefs more rational than those of people who use the Bible to justify what they do? For example: abortion. Many people who are prolife are also very religious and use the Bible as a moral guidelines. Why is your opinion more logical or rational than their opinion? I have a hint: it's not. The basis on which you've set your opinion is just as arbitrary. You can try to pull science out to support your view, but face it, you actually are terminating a potential life when you abort a pregnancy. Any doctor will tell you that.

My opinions are at least not based off of a book that has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've ever read. And finding books with fewer inconsistencies and contradictions isn't all that hard. There are such books before and after the bible. Although I would say you don't even need to base your opinions off of a book. The fact that you blindly follow a book without questioning whether or not it makes any sense doesn't sound particularly logical or rational at all. What do you think some abortion argument from religion looks like? That abortion is wrong just because some book says so? Well, why don't I ask some Neo-Nazi why they think all the Jews should be killed, and they'll probably say something like Mein Kampf. Does that make them right? Hell no.

As for the concept of terminating life, that would depend on at what stage the abortion happens, and this would also have to do with the controversy over when life is actually life--there are too many different views of when a fetus is considered living, and I doubt any scientist actually agrees with what it is. Furthermore, parents not having access to child support can't raise a child in a good environment--even if they could have child support, they might just make for bad parents. Would that really be a smart thing to do to allow children to grow up not having a good childhood? But I think this topic deserves a thread of its own because abortion was only an example of what I was explaining.

Quote:

You keep repeating the same thing about the Bible, over and over and over. It's getting repetitive. It's not really as nonsensical as you like to portray it. In fact, I get the feeling you haven't actually read much (if any) of it. That makes any comments of yours on the Bible completely irrelevant. Because one cannot write a book review for a book that one has not read.

Sure I have. Only to fall asleep halfway through, and everytime I try to pick it up, the same thing happens. From which I can only conclude that it's not really all that great--why would anyone want to read a book or watch a movie who reads or watches it halfway through and find it so terrible and bad that they don't even want to see the rest of it because trying to read or watch through the rest of it would be like torture? In the interest of seeing how bad those things are without enduring oneself through anymore torture, there are websites, critiques and other books on these kinds of things in which you can learn more about the book or movie without having to torture yourself through it.

I don't particularly care if you don't think much of my interpretation of the bible just because I refuse to subject myself to more torture by reading it. But it is undeniable that a flat Earth is ridiculous, a 6000 year old Earth is ridiculous, the global flood is ridiculous, splitting the waters is ridiculous, the Garden of Eden is ridiculous, the earth-centered universe is ridiculous, a guy living in a whale and living is ridiculous, a physical heaven and hell directly "above" and "below" the Earth are ridiculous, a book written by some guy who pretends to be Moses who isn't actually Moses is ridiculous, and a book written by four guys who wrote about the same thing that don't say the same thing is ridiculous. I have never ever in my life ever read any other book that claimed such nonsense to be absolutely and absurdly as true as the bible--and quite stupidly and arrogantly without any evidence at all. You can deny this all you want, but there's absolutely nothing mathematical (ie, rational) whatsoever about the bible, and there's nothing in it that makes sense at all in it. You already admitted that religion isn't logical and is completely based on faith, so why you think opinions based off of it even have a rational basis is completely beyond me.

April 16, 2008, 4:02 AM

Contradiction in the bible:
God loves all of his children equally...Homosexuality is a sin.
So never say god doesn't contradict himself.

Apparently God (in Joshua) stopped the sun which doesn't make sense because according to scientific proof the Earth revolves around the sun and if the Earth stopped (which would give the illusion of the sun stopping) we would burn up and fly into the sun.

May 11, 2008, 1:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Friedrich Gauß

I'm just saying it would make more sense if they persecuted Christianity if they wanted to get rid of it, and if they wanted to make it a majority, then they'd have no reason to persecute people who believe in Christianity and not Shintoism. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case though because they don't have a very good impression of foreigners. It's still there today.

But whatever. People don't make any sense at all.

Well, whether you want to label it rational or not, it happened. So accept it. I could give you a long list of historical situations in which a minority religion was persecuted by a majority religion. Hell, I could give you current examples. Let's talk about the situation in Iraq, eh?

Quote:

The fact that certain religions have texts that tell people what to do makes it infinitely worse--at least it's not wrong to not convert others if you're from a different religion, but if you're not converting people and your religious text tells you to, then there's a problem with the religion. But one religion persecuting others without a text telling them to do so isn't really a big deal and won't prove your point. Because I already gave that example of Buddhism, and there are probably several other spirutual or naturalistic religions that don't do that to other people as well.

Okay, admittedly, I don't remember what your example of Buddhism was for. But if it was an example of a religion that has never tried to convert others, you'd be pretty wrong. Buddhists in Japan have persecuted others and attempted to convert them to Buddhism. And you thought Buddhism was such a peace-loving religion. Aw. This just further proves my point: it's not the religion that's inherently violent; it's the certain PEOPLE in the religion that make it violent. And I'm still waiting for you to show me all of the violent quotes you've found in the New Testament.

Quote:

Certain religions say divorce is wrong, and yet, the people from these same religions have divorces, particularly at a rate higher than people from secular societies do.

But if you're going to say that divorce happens for many reasons, then I could say that people consider themselves "happy" for different reasons, but unlike divorce, the concept of happiness is just about as subjective as the concept of "good". Just because you're happy doesn't necessarily mean you live a "better" life. It's not up to anyone to judge whether or not religious people are "happier" than non religious people, nor should non religious people stop being non religious just because religious people are "happier" than they are.

In other words, I don't think much of the fact that a study, bar its accuracy, says religious people are happier than non religious people. I would think it's because people can't accept reality the way it is, harsh or not, and need or want some comfort from the unknown.

Are you going to start believing in creationism just because some study says the majority of Americans believe in it, and it's being taught in place of science? Hell no. Are you going to start believing you're depressed and need drugs just because some study says more and more people are becoming depressed? No. At least I know I wouldn't. Such studies, particularly ones from the media are too generalized to apply to every single person on this planet, and you can only know through common sense.

All I said was that the study found that religious people, on average, reported themselves as happier than non-religious people. If you want to philosophize about what it means to be happy, be my guest, though it's more than a little irrelevant. How can religion be seen as "irrational" if it brings joy or happiness to people? If someone finds joy in believing in something unknown, what's wrong with that? The rational and obvious choice is to do something that brings you joy. That doesn't mean its meant for everyone. I never said that. I just don't understand why you're constantly putting so much effort into badmouthing something that a) you don't fully understand and b) actually helps people in life. If, say, we were living in Spain in the 1400s, I could maybe understand your dislike of Christianity. But we aren't. And you're hating a religion based mainly on stereotypes you have of it. But I digress.

Quote:

Actually, I don't base any of my morals off of any texts, holy or not. I base them off of the consequences and the probability of them happening. If any of the texts I've read happened to agree, it's a mutual thing. At the very least, if there was a contradiction or inconsistency, I'd be able to point it out. However, you've been missing out on something I've been saying all along, which is that the bible has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've read. Ever. And I never asked that any book have no flaws at all, only that there are few of them. Although that's probably because most of the books I read and ever cared about are math related, and are nearly clean from flaws--if they aren't, they'll write a better edition. But actually, that's a reason why certain books are more worthwhile. Because they are able to admit flaws when they've been made, and newer editions attempt to fix them. But no one ever attempts to fix the bible. It's remained just about as ridiculous (if not more so) as it ever was since it first appeared.

I know everyone likes to think that they came out of the womb as a fully formed individually-minded person, but it's just not the case. Your personality and morals have been shaped by things you have seen, things you have read, people you have talked to: in short, the society that has surrounded you. To think otherwise is just ignorant and a little arrogant. Whether it is a conscious decision or not, you have based your morals and ideals on things you have read. Things you have read throughout the course of your life have shaped you in some way. The Bible does have some flaws, but I personally don't believe they're so substantial that they seriously detract from the religion. That you even suggest "fixing" the Bible is evidence that you don't understand religion. And what would you even suggest "fixing"?

Quote:

But do me a favor and read the Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, and try telling me it's riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Do that before you bother telling me that every text is riddled with inconsistencies and flaws again. I can tell you that it's been read by lots of people, and not even one of them to my knowledge was able to find a flaw in it.

No.

I only like to read things that have some sort of relevency in my life, and abstract useless mathematics does nothing for me. And to compare a religious text-- one that has multiple writers, was compiled over centuries, was translated countless times, and was written over 2000 years ago -- to a relatively recent mathematic text is ridiculous. That's like complaining that the Egyptians didn't have cars.

Quote:

My opinions are at least not based off of a book that has more inconsistencies and contradictions than any other book I've ever read. And finding books with fewer inconsistencies and contradictions isn't all that hard. There are such books before and after the bible. Although I would say you don't even need to base your opinions off of a book. The fact that you blindly follow a book without questioning whether or not it makes any sense doesn't sound particularly logical or rational at all. What do you think some abortion argument from religion looks like? That abortion is wrong just because some book says so? Well, why don't I ask some Neo-Nazi why they think all the Jews should be killed, and they'll probably say something like Mein Kampf. Does that make them right? Hell no.

I hope you do realize that the Bible is probably the most influential book in the world. It has had a heavy hand in shaping western society as we know it. Not too shabby for a book that, according to you, is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies. What you really need to understand is that the Bible is a compilation of different books. The point of the Bible is not to be flawless like some mathematics book. It has a much different function than a mathematics book. And for God's sake, stop assuming that every Christian is some drooling moron who never questions the Bible and believes every word. It's so....disgustingly ignorant. Many Christians BASE their morals off the Bible. I didn't say they strictly follow every word written. And using literature to support the belief that potential children shouldn't be killed versus supporting the idea of mass genocide. Yeah. That's comparable.

Quote:

As for the concept of terminating life, that would depend on at what stage the abortion happens, and this would also have to do with the controversy over when life is actually life--there are too many different views of when a fetus is considered living, and I doubt any scientist actually agrees with what it is. Furthermore, parents not having access to child support can't raise a child in a good environment--even if they could have child support, they might just make for bad parents. Would that really be a smart thing to do to allow children to grow up not having a good childhood? But I think this topic deserves a thread of its own because abortion was only an example of what I was explaining.

I don't particularly agree with pro-lifers. I was just saying that you can't just discredit their beliefs just because their morals don't match yours. It's a fact that you are ending a potential life, no matter when you abort it. Like I said, I don't particularly agree, but I can understand where they're coming from.

Quote:

Sure I have. Only to fall asleep halfway through, and everytime I try to pick it up, the same thing happens. From which I can only conclude that it's not really all that great--why would anyone want to read a book or watch a movie who reads or watches it halfway through and find it so terrible and bad that they don't even want to see the rest of it because trying to read or watch through the rest of it would be like torture? In the interest of seeing how bad those things are without enduring oneself through anymore torture, there are websites, critiques and other books on these kinds of things in which you can learn more about the book or movie without having to torture yourself through it.

Yeah, you haven't read it. That's what I thought. And I bet you've been to all those atheist sites to "learn" about the Bible. Ha. They're definitely credible teachers. But yeah, if you want to continue to argue about something you haven't even READ, please do. Although, I do think I recall you saying-- in this very post, actually-- that you didn't base your opinion off of things you've read. Instead, you've based your opinion of something you haven't actually read yourself off of the opinions of others. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry but I think that's ridiculous. How can you even THINK to criticize its consistency if you haven't read it? Let me guess: you found a website where it picks out a few quotes from the Bible, strips them of their context, and criticizes them.

Quote:

I don't particularly care if you don't think much of my interpretation of the bible just because I refuse to subject myself to more torture by reading it. But it is undeniable that a flat Earth is ridiculous, a 6000 year old Earth is ridiculous, the global flood is ridiculous, splitting the waters is ridiculous, the Garden of Eden is ridiculous, the earth-centered universe is ridiculous, a guy living in a whale and living is ridiculous, a physical heaven and hell directly "above" and "below" the Earth are ridiculous, a book written by some guy who pretends to be Moses who isn't actually Moses is ridiculous, and a book written by four guys who wrote about the same thing that don't say the same thing is ridiculous. I have never ever in my life ever read any other book that claimed such nonsense to be absolutely and absurdly as true as the bible--and quite stupidly and arrogantly without any evidence at all. You can deny this all you want, but there's absolutely nothing mathematical (ie, rational) whatsoever about the bible, and there's nothing in it that makes sense at all in it. You already admitted that religion isn't logical and is completely based on faith, so why you think opinions based off of it even have a rational basis is completely beyond me.

Somebody was never an English major and doesn't recognize allegory when she sees it. Unlike math, the Bible is not literal. Many things in the Bible are highly allegorical. And the flood in the Bible is based on another, older text. So yeah, that was probably an actual historical event. Is it rational to want to be happy? I think we can all agree that it is. And to choose religion in order to seek out happiness, thus, is rational, regardless of whether religion itself is rational. And to base your opinions off of something that brings you happiness, why then, is that irrational? Hate to break it to you, but rationality is not a concrete or absolute value. It's completely subjective. So, as I said, just because you deemed it irrational doesn't mean that it is to others. You base your opinions off of the experiences that have shaped you. Your so called "rationality" is a result of your cultural shaping. For some, those experiences include religion. So, it's not that they're irrational and you aren't. They just come from a different social shaping than you do. Here's something I think you don't get: while math can be global in its rationality because it can be presented in a vacuum separate from morals and culture, things like the Bible and religion cannot. It's your personal choice that you are an atheist. Good for you if that's the choice you've made because you feel it is the most rational. However, to badmouth others and call them weak or whatever for choosing religion is unacceptable to me. It just makes you seem highly ethnocentric and close minded. The majority of religious people are not stupid, irrational, or ignorant.

May 11, 2008, 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

Well, whether you want to label it rational or not, it happened. So accept it. I could give you a long list of historical situations in which a minority religion was persecuted by a majority religion. Hell, I could give you current examples. Let's talk about the situation in Iraq, eh?

I'm not simply content to read every little thing I can find anywhere and say that it happened without questioning it; that's all. I'm not that gullible of a reader.

Quote:

Okay, admittedly, I don't remember what your example of Buddhism was for. But if it was an example of a religion that has never tried to convert others, you'd be pretty wrong. Buddhists in Japan have persecuted others and attempted to convert them to Buddhism. And you thought Buddhism was such a peace-loving religion. Aw. This just further proves my point: it's not the religion that's inherently violent; it's the certain PEOPLE in the religion that make it violent. And I'm still waiting for you to show me all of the violent quotes you've found in the New Testament.

Well gee, I didn't know that. Why don't you provide me sources that show that Buddhism was actually not so peace-loving, and then maybe I'll provide you with some violent quotes from the New Testament. However, even if you don't think Buddhism is peace-loving, there are plenty of other pagan religions that don't force other people to convert.

Quote:

All I said was that the study found that religious people, on average, reported themselves as happier than non-religious people. If you want to philosophize about what it means to be happy, be my guest, though it's more than a little irrelevant. How can religion be seen as "irrational" if it brings joy or happiness to people? If someone finds joy in believing in something unknown, what's wrong with that? The rational and obvious choice is to do something that brings you joy. That doesn't mean its meant for everyone. I never said that. I just don't understand why you're constantly putting so much effort into badmouthing something that a) you don't fully understand and b) actually helps people in life. If, say, we were living in Spain in the 1400s, I could maybe understand your dislike of Christianity. But we aren't. And you're hating a religion based mainly on stereotypes you have of it. But I digress.

Well gee, I don't know; love makes people happy, and yet, it's considered irrational because it makes people do irrational things--is that impossible? Of course not. You can do irrational things to make yourself happy. You can choose not to go to work and take the day off; it will make you happy for awhile because you don't have to work, but then you're not earning any money. There are many ways of being happy, and not all of them involve being rational. Just because it's rational to WANT to be happy doesn't mean the means by which you achieve happiness is rational.

I've had to repeat this several times, but it seems you're not quite getting it. I do express my dislike for Christianity because it's true that I don't like it--I can do so to explain why I'm not Christian. But I would never tell people they shouldn't believe in Christianity, nor would I call them "stupid" for believing in it. But there are two things to consider: There are still people (ie, fundamentalists) who still don't act any differently from those in Spain in the 1400's, and my opinion of the bible is that it's fundamentally flawed. You don't have to like my opinion of it, but my opinion of it is that it's so terrible I can't even finish reading it without falling asleep. I don't have a problem with liberal Christians. I still think it's strange that they read a book that says the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old and choose to believe certain parts of it rather than reading a different book from which the bible's morals originally came from, but I have no beef with them. I think there are better things people could be doing with their lives, but I'm not going to tell them what to do because it's none of my business. But I don't believe it's wrong to express an opinion of something.

And also remember that in previous threads, you yourself admitted that religion is not rational. So why don't you answer for yourself why something irrational like religion gives people happiness?

Quote:

I know everyone likes to think that they came out of the womb as a fully formed individually-minded person, but it's just not the case. Your personality and morals have been shaped by things you have seen, things you have read, people you have talked to: in short, the society that has surrounded you. To think otherwise is just ignorant and a little arrogant. Whether it is a conscious decision or not, you have based your morals and ideals on things you have read. Things you have read throughout the course of your life have shaped you in some way. The Bible does have some flaws, but I personally don't believe they're so substantial that they seriously detract from the religion. That you even suggest "fixing" the Bible is evidence that you don't understand religion. And what would you even suggest "fixing"?

Remove all the contradictions, get rid of the ridiculous stories that are scientifically inaccurate, remove all the references about God committing violence or other horrible acts, or at least make them less ambiguous, and don't make him seem like he's shooting himself in the foot when he says he's omnipotent and omniscient--oh wait, that last one is nearly impossible. But instead of trying to fix a book that has too many inconsistencies, I'd think it's better to find other books (if it has to be a book) that explains its point better. None of these useless metaphors, ambiguity and other contradictions. It's like you have to sift through miles and miles of pages before you find what you're looking for, and the rest is just fluff.

Quote:

No.

I only like to read things that have some sort of relevency in my life, and abstract useless mathematics does nothing for me. And to compare a religious text-- one that has multiple writers, was compiled over centuries, was translated countless times, and was written over 2000 years ago -- to a relatively recent mathematic text is ridiculous. That's like complaining that the