What I've been trying to say all along

[DarthPaul]

.....Shit he's right this is spam.

[Bastard Poetry]

I don't have any imaginary friends.

Except for you guys.

[DarthPaul]

I don't have any imaginary friends.

Except for you guys.

Well said Mega Ultra Chicken.

[Kaijyuu]

I'm in agreement with DP, LD, and redux, if that's possible.

[Xifanie]

hell is imaginationland

[Archael]

Have I tried to justify anything?  I don't think I have.  I'm pretty sure I've just said that humanity will do bad things, and it's not contingent upon the presence of religion.  In fact, I've agreed that people use religion to be dicks.  I am saying that humanity's malevolence is rooted in humanity, not religion.  And if you believe religion was created by man, then you should agree.  Because then religion is just a branch off of the ole' humanity tree.

I know

but it sounds like when ideas such as the ones presented in this video are brought up, you dismiss them as "oh well there would be evil even if religion wasn't around, so what's your point?", that's all

 

I am saying that humanity's malevolence is rooted in humanity, not religion.

Right.

In fact, I've agreed that people use religion to be dicks.

Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Religion has served as a security blanket for problematic individuals / their followers for far too long, much too effectively. You can argue that other things besides religion should also be abolished then, my answer will be that yes, we also need to get rid of those things.

But religion has to go, too.

[Archael]

I would like to throw an agnostic two cents into this conversation.

You can quote me if you like.

I will, because this topic doesn't have to do with gnosticism / agnosticism

claiming you are agnostic doesn't say shit about what you believe (when it comes to god and religion, atleast)

you are either agnostic atheist (what I am), agnostic theist, gnostic atheist (what theists usually accuse atheists of being), and gnostic theist

I am sure most people here are agnostic theists or agnostic atheists

so yeah, if you wanna throw  the word agnostic around, that says nothing about your beliefs, you're missing the other part

gnostic / agnostic has to do with knowing

theism / atheism has to do with your BELIEF

[philsov]

Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Money, popularity, and weapons of all kinds including muscled people?

And while you're off ridding the world of Power, I'm going wrangle me a pig so I can soar, majestic and free, over the icy reaches of hell.

[Redux]

Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Money, popularity, and weapons of all kinds including muscled people?

And while you're off ridding the world of Power, I'm going wrangle me a pig so I can soar, majestic and free, over the icy reaches of hell.

All things are subjective. All things can be exploited to allow evil or in this case, being a "dick". To remove that would remove humanity. Potential is what we are. We are not of reason, but of potential. I will be riding a hog as well philsov. As i square the circle.

[Archael]

Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Money, popularity, and weapons of all kinds including muscled people?

And while you're off ridding the world of Power, I'm going wrangle me a pig so I can soar, majestic and free, over the icy reaches of hell.

if you wanna go down that road of defining "being a dick" as the slightest negative attitue, then sure. when I meant "being dicks" I meant the things that people do and then claim it's ok in the name of religion

you KNOW the things I'm talking about, and no, muscled people has not been on the list of reasons for things like on-going war against a group of people, genocide, or 9/11


by your logic, you can go and define every single thing as abolish-able due to it's potential for harm, but you still haven't made religion seem any less wrong, and it remains as the reason for the things pointed out in that video

[DarthPaul]

I will, because this topic doesn't have to do with gnosticism / agnosticism

Yes it does because the atheistic belief that there is no god is just as arrogant as the theist belief that there is one.

I would much rather have a world of atheists but that is because they are not as violent. They are a bit hypocritical in some ways but you can live around someone who believes in nothing far easier than one who devotes his life to an uncertainty.

you are either agnostic atheist (what I am), agnostic theist, gnostic atheist (what theists usually accuse atheists of being), and gnostic theist

Sorry, for that clarification is in order. I am a hard agnostic with pragmatic beliefs.

I do not lean towards either side of atheism or theism because that would not be true to what I know. As far as the truth goes I know nothing, so I make no claims.




Also you seem to have missed the point of my post. Which was that this is not a problem worth fighting over. It will resolve itself as the ignorant masses kill each other off in the name of religion. I don't like the concept or the thought of being caught in the middle but it will happen. Multiple religions cannot coexist because religious people don't know how to cope with other people not excepting their beliefs.

[Archael]

you are either agnostic atheist (what I am), agnostic theist, gnostic atheist (what theists usually accuse atheists of being), and gnostic theist

Sorry, for that clarification is in order. I am a hard agnostic with pragmatic beliefs.

I do not lean towards either side of atheism or theism because that would not be true to what I know. As far as the truth goes I know nothing, so I make no claims.

you don't have to make claims to establish a belief

believe it or not, you ARE a theist or an atheist

there is one you believe over the other

being agnostic about this belief is another topic altogether, did you read my post?

Yes it does because the atheistic belief that there is no god is just as arrogant as the theist belief that there is one.

except atheism isn't even a belief

especially not a belief that there is no deity

you have to look up the proper definition of atheist and see that atheists make no claims, they just LACK BELIEF in the theist claims

there is nothing arrogant about dis-believing something - and that's all atheism is

whether you are gnostic or agnostic about your atheist belief is another matter

[DarthPaul]

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1]or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

[Kaijyuu]

Hence, religion should be abolished, like everything else that allows evil people to be dicks and get away with it.

Religion has served as a security blanket for problematic individuals / their followers for far too long, much too effectively. You can argue that other things besides religion should also be abolished then, my answer will be that yes, we also need to get rid of those things.

But religion has to go, too.

Define "get away with it." And what you mean by a security blanket.

Would a gun toting lunatic shooting up a church have "gotten away" with it if he did it in the name of religion? How about a suicide bomber?

Multiple religions cannot coexist because religious people don't know how to cope with other people not excepting their beliefs.

That's quite the claim. I do agree that there are some people like that, but I think them the minority. The problems arise when these people gain a position of power.



I'm agnostic with a religious bias. Define that as what you will. I know that no one can "know" one way or another concerning religion (or at least they cannot prove it). I believe, or rather hope that there's something supernatural out there. I've come to to terms with the possibility of there being nothing, however.

[philsov]

no, muscled people has not been on the list of reasons for things like on-going war against a group of people, genocide, or 9/11

group of people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... ted_States

genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

9/11 (part of):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Palestine

All of which happened because... drumroll... the other side had more guns and muscle.  

Meanwhile, the following were done under the flag of SCIENCE!  Should we ban research as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron
http://www.rbs2.com/humres.htm

~

Also double-replying:

Multiple religions cannot coexist because religious people don't know how to cope with other people not excepting their beliefs

Multiple political views cannot coexist because political people don't know how to cope with other people not accepting their political ideology.  (See: about every civil war and domestic revolution in history.)  

I suppose we should have no belief system whatsoever and no political system at all, including anarchy.  

*rides off on pig*

~

Meh, triple.

believe it or not, you ARE a theist or an atheist

There's two main camps of atheism; hard and soft.  Hard atheism is the more militant and faith-based of the two, with a hard-line definition of "There is no deity."  Soft is easier to defend and requires little to no faith to maintain, usually something along the lines of "There is not enough evidence to prove existance of deity, and its impossible to prove a negative, so...."

[Archael]

you can argue that people can do evil acts based on things besides religions, and there is no denying that

but does that mean that we should let religion slide?

you can name secular ideals which have been the reason for "evil" and "immoral acts" all day long, the points in this video are still valid, is what I'm saying

]There's two main camps of atheism; hard and soft. Hard atheism is the more militant and faith-based of the two, with a hard-line definition of "There is no deity." Soft is easier to defend and requires little to no faith to maintain, usually something along the lines of "There is not enough evidence to prove existance of deity, and its impossible to prove a negative, so...."

I don't think I've ever heard about this

don't you mean "Agnostic Atheist" vs "Gnostic Atheist"?

as in "I don't believe in gods, but I don't claim to know / care for sure" vs "I don't believe in gods, and I KNOW they don't exist"?

[Wareya]

"other stuff besides religion causes evil, so why not abolish those too?" is what I'm told this argument's at.

Somethings that cause evil have no better alternative yet. Things that do are having the same controversy as religion. The main better AND ONLY alternative the theistic religion is atheism.

[philsov]

you can argue that people can do evil acts based on things besides religions, and there is no denying that

but does that mean that we should let religion slide?

Certainly, because religion isn't the problem.  People are.  

When someone is sick you cure their disease, not simply alleviate their symptoms.  

I'm not advocating killing half the world's population, but there is a MASSIVE difference between holding a belief and making decisions which affects others based on held beliefs; and that is not the fault of either any specific religion or religion in general for that matter.  

I don't think I've ever heard about this

don't you mean "Agnostic Atheist" vs "Gnostic Atheist"?

Vernecular versus technical.  Same thing, I guess.

[Archael]

I agree that people are the problem, but if we did not have religion around, do you think people would just find another X excuse to justify their bigotry / hatred / stupidity, etc?

[philsov]

of course. Talking in broad, general terms religion provides a "higher power" to which an individual is given both guidance and power.  If we remove all "higher power" structures like political affiliation (theocrats v. democrats, e.g), nationalism, religion, socio-economic standings, etcetcetc; then the highest power becomes the self -- which grants supreme power (no deity to damn the man, no state to execute him) but also supreme responsibility.  It'd be the same bell curve for ethical/unethical (good/bad, whatever) actions, extremes and all, as our current state.



It's tweedledee to tweedledum.