Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
I gave 5 examples: sexuality, politics, cars, internet and religion. Are you saying that you can abuse only the first 4 but religion itself is predetermined only for abuse and is thus evil itself? How do you explain this:
Tools are value-empty. A car is a tool. Doesn't do to compare it with another beast like religion. Politics is a better comparison, however I was not comparing one with the the other. Religion can be understood without any more or less relevant comparisons.
As for the thing you quote here, I say but one thing. Belief is key, not religion. It is a scientifically proven fact that the mind may both kill and heal. You can think yourself to death - quite rapidly, in fact. If someone believes it to be healthy to drink his own urine, that will 'help'. Religion does help in the same way. It does NOT follow logically from this point it is a good thing. However, and this is key, even if the good points about religion are all true, they do not detract from the evil points in any way. At any rate, it's a horrendous blunder to see religion as a value-empty tool which use is entirely dependant on the person using it.
The Church is not saying that anyone should have unprotected sex when having AIDS. It is simply saying that they should apply apstinence instead. It's a simple prioritisation of possible solutions. What's the problem with that? Why wouldn't someone be advised to apply the best possible method?
The church has seen the error of its ways - 20 years too late, but still. The error in this is childishly simple: human beings are animals with animal needs. Abstinence is unnatural. It does not work. For a select few it might, but for the vast majority it does not. Especially when blindly applied to cultures where sex with many different partners is normal.
So, claiming that atheism is the only choice for "non-fools" is not creating any divisions?
I did not claim any such thing. If you want to believe in anything, by all means, do so. The only thing I want to say is that there is a problem with religion. Atheïsm is rather akin to a belief as well, by the way. A belief to believe in nothing and that those who do, are fools, is still a belief with much the same pitfalls as any other religion.
At any rate, it's a horrendous blunder to see religion as a value-empty tool which use is entirely dependant on the person using it.
Actually, religion itself is a value-empty tool. It gets filled with values quite differently by a budhist, muslim or catholic person. Even among people of the same religious orientation you will find great differences in values, both theoretically and practically. E.g. you cannot say that Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) and Pope John Paul II (Karel Wojtyla) shared the same values. So again, this shows that it all comes down to only how you actually use religion.
I could easily "prove" that atheism is evil by naming horrible deeds by people who were atheists but that would, of course, be quite stupid. The only advantage atheism has to other religions is exactly this alibi of not belonging to a group of people. So, if an atheist does something evil, it's definately a different kind of atheist than you are. But, when a muslim or christian performs evil, then it must be the dogma that made him do it and that all religous people share. That's just plain stupid.
The error in this is childishly simple: human beings are animals with animal needs. Abstinence is unnatural. It does not work. For a select few it might, but for the vast majority it does not. Especially when blindly applied to cultures where sex with many different partners is normal.
No, humans are animals merely physiologically. We have evolved from animals but spiritually, we're quite different. All the differences we have from animals give thanx to our spiritual development in which religion played a significant role.
Abstinence is unnatural but it does work. This is actually the main thing that discerns humans from animals - ability to selfimpose control on our urges. Humanity is actually primarily defined by this quality. We have successfully overcome many cultures with strange traditions. We will overcome those that like changing partners as well. Such cultures either destroy themselves or get absorbed within more superior cultures that nurture selfcontrol as a quality.
I did not claim any such thing. If you want to believe in anything, by all means, do so. The only thing I want to say is that there is a problem with religion. Atheïsm is rather akin to a belief as well, by the way. A belief to believe in nothing and that those who do, are fools, is still a belief with much the same pitfalls as any other religion.
You wrote: "Not to mention the artificial divide between those who believe the right thing and the poor misguided fools who don't. This is an open invitation for neglect, violence and differentiation. " So, you implied that only religion produces divisions. So, you believe that if everyone would give up on religion and became atheist, this would resolve that problem. By that, you are actually creating another worldview that is trying to gather as much followers in order to solve the same problem religions are trying to do. How's that a different process from when religions want to attract as much followers as possbile?
Actually, religion itself is a value-empty tool. It gets filled with values quite differently by a budhist, muslim or catholic person. Even among people of the same religious orientation you will find great differences in values, both theoretically and practically. E.g. you cannot say that Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) and Pope John Paul II (Karel Wojtyla) shared the same values. So again, this shows that it all comes down to only how you actually use religion.
I could easily "prove" that atheism is evil by naming horrible deeds by people who were atheists but that would, of course, be quite stupid. The only advantage atheism has to other religions is exactly this alibi of not belonging to a group of people. So, if an atheist does something evil, it's definately a different kind of atheist than you are. But, when a muslim or christian performs evil, then it must be the dogma that made him do it and that all religous people share. That's just plain stupid.
The error in this is childishly simple: human beings are animals with animal needs. Abstinence is unnatural. It does not work. For a select few it might, but for the vast majority it does not. Especially when blindly applied to cultures where sex with many different partners is normal.
No, humans are animals merely physiologically. We have evolved from animals but spiritually, we're quite different. All the differences we have from animals give thanx to our spiritual development in which religion played a significant role.
Abstinence is unnatural but it does work. This is actually the main thing that discerns humans from animals - ability to selfimpose control on our urges. Humanity is actually primarily defined by this quality. We have successfully overcome many cultures with strange traditions. We will overcome those that like changing partners as well. Such cultures either destroy themselves or get absorbed within more superior cultures that nurture selfcontrol as a quality.
I did not claim any such thing. If you want to believe in anything, by all means, do so. The only thing I want to say is that there is a problem with religion. Atheïsm is rather akin to a belief as well, by the way. A belief to believe in nothing and that those who do, are fools, is still a belief with much the same pitfalls as any other religion.
You wrote: "Not to mention the artificial divide between those who believe the right thing and the poor misguided fools who don't. This is an open invitation for neglect, violence and differentiation. " So, you implied that only religion produces divisions. So, you believe that if everyone would give up on religion and became atheist, this would resolve that problem. By that, you are actually creating another worldview that is trying to gather as much followers in order to solve the same problem religions are trying to do. How's that a different process from when religions want to attract as much followers as possbile?
Scientifically, when you die, you die. There's no life left in your body. Anything after that is not provable, whilst you can easily argue that you die and that is it :)
scientifically? i know only that there are many definitions of death (similar problem like trying to define life), but until today we aren´t agree on it.
and actually after i "died" once this is something about i only can laugh ;)
@rubinho
Your conclusion is wrong, read what I've written.
so you don´t have a proof.
but without having a proof it means that you don´t believe in "We die and that's it" (you wrote: "I don't believe anything that isn't proven").
I explained why I reject afterlife and you not being mature was an answer to your facepalm thing. Be intellectual honest enough to have a decent discussion by reading what I write.
i never asked you anything about afterlife. so i really don´t understand why you permanently talk about it.
I've had it with you two.
?
It Rubinho, not robinho.
sorry for that. belgian names are simply too complicated for me ;)
scientifically? i know only that there are many definitions of death (similar problem like trying to define life), but until today we aren´t agree on it.
and actually after i "died" once this is something about i only can laugh ;)
@rubinho
Your conclusion is wrong, read what I've written.
so you don´t have a proof.
but without having a proof it means that you don´t believe in "We die and that's it" (you wrote: "I don't believe anything that isn't proven").
I explained why I reject afterlife and you not being mature was an answer to your facepalm thing. Be intellectual honest enough to have a decent discussion by reading what I write.
i never asked you anything about afterlife. so i really don´t understand why you permanently talk about it.
I've had it with you two.
?
It Rubinho, not robinho.
sorry for that. belgian names are simply too complicated for me ;)
Actually, religion itself is a value-empty tool.
No, it's not. you very clearly don't have a clue what I am talking about here and, quite frankly, I can't be bothered to type it out. Takes too much time with one arm.
Abstinence is unnatural but it does work.
Which is why we have so many problems with abused children. You are deluded if you really believe mankind is above needs. We still need sustainance, shelter and the urge to reproduce is undenieable. We are animals. Thinking and talking animals at that, but still animals. Other animals are actually better at regulating their needs than we are.
So, you implied that only religion produces divisions. So, you believe that if everyone would give up on religion and became atheist, this would resolve that problem.
The last bit is patently not true. This is your conclusion, not mine. I have no great ideas on how to make things 'better'. I merely try to understand what is and why it is so.
(edited)
with one arm? were you riding tour de france?
Serious mode; it is clear here that people who themselves say that they do "not believe" are having the biggest criticism against any religion or religious people, stating from "stupid" to "unlogical" to simply ünbelievable"... Why is that?
Also I noticed in my life that most poeple arguing against religion are mostly downright leftwing anarchists; lazybugs who indulge themselves in wealthy western standards of living and think they've made the world all themselves..and simply political oppose religion or God!
Silly arguments are given for people that live in sin; that that is religiously motivated, where religion itself is teaching that it is only human to fail and make mistakes...
Religion therefor stands not for going at war because God wants us to...but it does defend our human offspring.
Ofcourse, being msulim or thinking islam is a religious thing, makes peoples view unclear...but is it "religion" what drives the islamic leaders? Those people with billion dollar bank accounts?
Was yasser Arafat religious becuase he was "muslim" is a Christian religious if he or she is baptised?
religion is much more than any silly argument put down here by a ew ignorant fools tha tthink they can think by themselves but that clearly speak words taught by their epsective leftwing teachers, ignorant idiots themselves with tiny small hearts....politically correct...anti america who saved their butts many times...anti israel, where they will dweep with worldwar 2 and will demonise "rightwing"people as being nazi's....
then there was one Croat that thought that he needed to make remarks about sebrenica , the dutch, the serbs and the "muslims" as he stated it... and asked what those muslims did wrong; well , if you can read, read objective reports, like the book that will follow soon by Carla DelPonte. Read abotu what live was or many serbs that were unlucky enough to have lived in muslim dominated areas in the Balkan.....for years, no, for generations, for as long as muslims and Islam were there!
life is about people, and ots of them f* up....that is what God and his word teaches us. Adn at least Christianity lets people free to say otherwise or to be non believers, all we can do is pray.
I think you criticizers are not fair towards any person who believes or is religous..
Serious mode; it is clear here that people who themselves say that they do "not believe" are having the biggest criticism against any religion or religious people, stating from "stupid" to "unlogical" to simply ünbelievable"... Why is that?
Also I noticed in my life that most poeple arguing against religion are mostly downright leftwing anarchists; lazybugs who indulge themselves in wealthy western standards of living and think they've made the world all themselves..and simply political oppose religion or God!
Silly arguments are given for people that live in sin; that that is religiously motivated, where religion itself is teaching that it is only human to fail and make mistakes...
Religion therefor stands not for going at war because God wants us to...but it does defend our human offspring.
Ofcourse, being msulim or thinking islam is a religious thing, makes peoples view unclear...but is it "religion" what drives the islamic leaders? Those people with billion dollar bank accounts?
Was yasser Arafat religious becuase he was "muslim" is a Christian religious if he or she is baptised?
religion is much more than any silly argument put down here by a ew ignorant fools tha tthink they can think by themselves but that clearly speak words taught by their epsective leftwing teachers, ignorant idiots themselves with tiny small hearts....politically correct...anti america who saved their butts many times...anti israel, where they will dweep with worldwar 2 and will demonise "rightwing"people as being nazi's....
then there was one Croat that thought that he needed to make remarks about sebrenica , the dutch, the serbs and the "muslims" as he stated it... and asked what those muslims did wrong; well , if you can read, read objective reports, like the book that will follow soon by Carla DelPonte. Read abotu what live was or many serbs that were unlucky enough to have lived in muslim dominated areas in the Balkan.....for years, no, for generations, for as long as muslims and Islam were there!
life is about people, and ots of them f* up....that is what God and his word teaches us. Adn at least Christianity lets people free to say otherwise or to be non believers, all we can do is pray.
I think you criticizers are not fair towards any person who believes or is religous..
Also I noticed in my life that most poeple arguing against religion are mostly downright leftwing anarchists; lazybugs who indulge themselves in wealthy western standards of living and think they've made the world all themselves..and simply political oppose religion or God!
LOL, seriously.
LOL, seriously.
LOL, greatest new of the day...
also bored with that "was an egg before chicken or opposite" philosophers? :)
(edited)
also bored with that "was an egg before chicken or opposite" philosophers? :)
(edited)
I don't have anything against religions or religious persons, as long as they don't try to affect me and my life.
There's nothing to philosophy(if that's a verb) about
And for Rubinho:
there are things that are true but that cannot be proven...just to let you know
(hint: Gödel formula)
So in a mathematical viewpoint, it's not because it cannot be proven that there's no afterlife, that there is effectively no afterlife. But it's your decision to believe whatever you want, I don't really care ;-) (just don't pretend like you're the only one that's right!)
And for Rubinho:
there are things that are true but that cannot be proven...just to let you know
(hint: Gödel formula)
So in a mathematical viewpoint, it's not because it cannot be proven that there's no afterlife, that there is effectively no afterlife. But it's your decision to believe whatever you want, I don't really care ;-) (just don't pretend like you're the only one that's right!)
When your heart shuts down and stays down, thats the mortuaries definition of death :). After that, nothing is provable and therefore you can argue death is the end. Also, mitches post might be most informing, but I stopped at left wing.
'Cause you're a left-wing socialist anarchist with communist inclinations!!
Goddamnnit, I knew that would impair my reading ability one day :P