It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
32
33
34
35
36
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 27, 2014
avatar
Lionel212008: ...People are demarcated on the basis of caste, creed and religion. Even today, in certain remote pockets, women are labelled as being witches and are burnt at the stake.Female infanticide is common. You might think that this is appalling.
...
It is also with good reason that we hate criminals....the murderers, the thieves and all the other scoundrels. that may exist behind bars...They are but a grim reflection of ourselves. A side that exists somewhere in the deep recesses of our heart....

We are all criminals; push a sane man too far and you will see the animal surge within him.
...
avatar
Trilarion: Yes, indeed I think it is appaling. Nothing against you or any other Indian but no use in saying the situation is better than it really is. I never hurt anyone really seriously and I expect the same behavior from anyone else. Obviously I shouldn't trust on that so I need to be prepared for exceptions, but generally in all modern democratic countries there is a law against violence and crime and in some of these countries the law is even effective.

India is probably struggling a lot, sheer size and population and narrow minds and backward oriented society structures makes it hard to govern and enforcing the laws.

The laws are often motivated religious or if not then they are a compromise, morale that is written down and agreed by the majority. But there can be only one authority. And then once you have good laws pray that there will be enough power given to the law and the law enforcement and you are kind of safe a bit. Best you can hope for.
Yes, civilized laws and proper law enforcement is the only barrier against a wave of humans, unleashing their inner animal side on everyone, turning this world(or a country) into a wasteland where the law of the jungle is the only law.
Post edited January 27, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted January 27, 2014
avatar
iippo: ...Religious people tend to be more social and communal than nonreligious people. ...
avatar
Trilarion: I'm not sure about this and would like to have more proof about that. For example here there is a political party who is supposed to have a higher membership rate of catholics and protestants and by some coincidence this is also the party which is happy when social benefits are cutted.

It might be or it might not be. Not having a religion might result in some kind of loss of orientation and community or maybe atheists can compensate somehow or maybe the church community could also be a kind of fake community with strange rules and only superficial solidarity.

Don't get me wrong. I think the notion is interesting but probably not universally valid until solidly tested.
Take note what youre comparing - religious groups and political groups -> both of which are social groups.

Not all atheists/agnostics belong to a political group, so you cant exactly compare them 1:1.

Ofcourse not all religious people take active part or are members of some church or whatever, but most religions are still very much organized and communal.

-----

If you ever make mistake of reading say biographies of succesful people, youll notice that people will say "succesful person A, B and C went to this same school - thus if you go to this same school, youll be succesfull too!".

-> this is ofcourse all so very wrong. Ofcourse alot of people have graduated from the same school who did NOT be succesful, might have done very bad career aswell. But the persons looking for "reasons for success" by cherry picking only the succesfull people who had graduate instead of all.
Posted January 27, 2014
avatar
ThoRn: Rape, homosexuality, incest, all those are found in every other species on this planet including our own. Those are natural. Morality is only found in humans.
avatar
Telika: By the way, homosexuality is immoral I gather ?
I never understood anyway why any man would oppose other men being gay. Highly illogical. If other men were gay, all the more free hetero women for me.

It is the hetero women who should hate the thought of men having fun with each others only.
Post edited January 27, 2014 by timppu
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
TStael: Just wondering - iippo: does your belief; or non-belief, inspire you to be a better man in any way, or anything goes? After all, being a Slave of economy is rather Lutheran, I should think! :-p
avatar
iippo: I wouldnt say being slave of economy is Lutheran - rather just plain, well, unavoidable economical truth these days. Want to have house without having won in lottery or having rich parents? -> Marry bank for few decades, not the happiest sort of relationship really -_-

Original sin all that that - i think its very grim way to see the world.

Anyways, does my belief or non-belief inspire me to be better man? That is a good question. Lets try putting it like this:

I suppose if should say i believe in something, i might be believer in "aji" or karma. ... I know some buddhists, who seem to believe that if you "do good deed", say give money to monk or charity - it will somehow magically raise their odds of winning in lottery for example. This i believe is wrong and not actually buddhism in the first place.

The way i see "karma" or if you "real life aji" - is potential. Our actions have potential to both good and bad.

Notice emphasis on "likely". Accidents and lottery wins happen without regard to what kind of life you have lived.

To me this is nothing supernatural - rather just the way life works: Effort in any matter is -more likely- to have favorable result than inactivity.

..i wonder if that answered anything, in bit of hurry atm.
Oh, I should say that the difficulty in quoting yet condensing your post fairly makes it necessary to elevate it in honour! +1 that shall be. :-)

Original sin - yep, I do agree this is not celebrating the beauty of creation; as it must be, and as well removing to an extent the responsibility for us humans to take responsibility to thrive for good beyond our lowest instincts.

Yet, a little bit teasingly to your apparent rejection of Lutheran work ethic - which I think has contributed into making Scandinavia thriving as a region; and into making the early 90's recession into a deeply brutal blow in Finland - I should like to remind that it was against indulgence (=anekauppa) that inspired Luther to post his Theses. Quite as you disapprove of charitable donations by Buddhists as divine lottery tickets. ;-)

In terms of "likelihood"; the lottery is statistically like dropping a dart into a blank piece of paper, I've been taught. As such, any individual point of impact is improbable to the point of indefinitely small chance - yet a single point in the end shall de facto be chosen. I tend to think that particularly desperate conditions tend to inspire fatalistic beliefs, where the current conditions shall be so very bad indeed, that any tipping of scales shall do.

Anyone of us shall have "real life aji" - potential to do good or bad - but somehow the question is if you enjoy one; or the other - and how you might tell them apart?

I do not mind calling it The Hand of Providence (in terms of my Lutheran upbringing) or The Threads of Destiny - but I am quite convinced most of us have a common-nonsensical ability to separate what is good or harming to our family, friends; and neighbours. I personally prefer to apply what is good, within my own limitations - but just wonder, who can earnestly rejoice on harm?
Posted January 28, 2014
I like to show this:

http://visual.ly/scale-universe?view=true

Amazing how this one tiny, tiny, tiny, world in this Large and Wide Universe has so much things and history behind it.

Edit: A more comprehensible picture of the observable universe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_%28JPEG%29.jpg
Post edited January 28, 2014 by Elmofongo
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: Amazing how this one tiny, tiny, tiny, world in this Large and Wide Universe has so much things and history behind it.
Which begs the question... is there the slightest change that somewhere in this fantastic universe, maybe galaxies away, there is a planet similar to Earth that is capable of giving birth to another Chuck Norris? And if they met, would the universe collapse? Sadly we will never know.
Post edited January 28, 2014 by F4LL0UT
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
Elmofongo: Amazing how this one tiny, tiny, tiny, world in this Large and Wide Universe has so much things and history behind it.
avatar
F4LL0UT: Which begs the question... is there the slightest change that somewhere in this fantastic universe, maybe galaxies away, there is a planet similar to Earth that is capable of giving birth to another Chuck Norris? And if they met, would the universe collapse? Sadly we will never know.
In the end the reason I posted this begs another question, what makes humanity special?

How do our gods of all cultures and spirits/ghosts fit in this practically endless universe with who knows what is out there.
Post edited January 28, 2014 by Elmofongo
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
Telika: By the way, homosexuality is immoral I gather ?
avatar
timppu: I never understood anyway why any man would oppose other men being gay. Highly illogical. If other men were gay, all the more free hetero women for me.

It is the hetero women who should hate the thought of men having fun with each others only.
Come, now - not quite!

Clichédly, shall the gay men be as good looking or compelling as they are dubbed to be - and often are, taking Neil Tennant of PSB, George Micheal or Marc Jacobs as examples - surely most of the hetero or bi girls will greatly enjoy them without assuming to have them.

And with gay men, women should be able to enjoy a friendship that is an devoid of ulterior motive - yet pleasing by what there is to enrich each other by the differences between men and women.

But then again, I think Telika was just being sarcastic cum playful, as clearly parental incest to a child or rape should always be reprehensible, as opposed to love or lust between consenting adults.
avatar
ThoRn: Rape, homosexuality, incest, all those are found in every other species on this planet including our own. Those are natural. Morality is only found in humans.
avatar
Telika: By the way, homosexuality is immoral I gather ?
Pray, tell, Telika - were you being sarcastic in your comment, as I should hope?
Post edited January 28, 2014 by TStael
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
Telika: By the way, homosexuality is immoral I gather ?
avatar
timppu: I never understood anyway why any man would oppose other men being gay. Highly illogical. If other men were gay, all the more free hetero women for me.

It is the hetero women who should hate the thought of men having fun with each others only.
Blame the bible. The bible says, sex is only for procreation and gay sex has no purpose other than pleasure for homosexual men. If a hetero man doesn't believe in the bible, then yes, it is extremely illogical for him to oppose other men being gay. That is like people, opposing other people wanting to be poor or unemployed. :) More $$$ or jobs for you if other people want to be poor or unemployed. It also doesn't help that Western society is based on emotion and not logic. In fact, monkeys are more logical than most people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbg6xoS3K3U
Post edited January 28, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
Telika: By the way, homosexuality is immoral I gather ?
avatar
TStael: Pray, tell, Telika - were you being sarcastic in your comment, as I should hope?
Oh dear, this thread is still alive after having turmed into that horror by ThoRn ?

Anyway, I don't know what you mean. I was asking him to explicit his opposition of "rape, homosexuality, incest" to "morality", in order to complete the picture (after sexism and racism). I guess the question had been a bit too straightforward.

ThoRn is not a very nice human.
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
TStael: Pray, tell, Telika - were you being sarcastic in your comment, as I should hope?
avatar
Telika: Oh dear, this thread is still alive after having turmed into that horror by ThoRn ?

Anyway, I don't know what you mean. I was asking him to explicit his opposition of "rape, homosexuality, incest" to "morality", in order to complete the picture (after sexism and racism). I guess the question had been a bit too straightforward.

ThoRn is not a very nice human.
I do find it nice when there is a lively discussion, actually. Though I find it somewhat unfortunate that OP has eliminated the first post essentially, as it somewhat cheapens the subsequent discussion to my mind.

I was assuming you disapproved of homosexuality being cited with rape and incest (first=normal; rest = criminal). And per your response, I indeed think you do? Sorry if I posted my comment in a way that seemed intolerant or aggressive.

And I should hope we can always turn it back into reasonable and nice discussion, really! I shall happily be there with ya. :-)
Posted January 28, 2014
"My hand hurts!"
"Prove it!"
"I broke my pinky!"
"Prove it!"
"Here's a picture."
"How do I know that's really your hand? Prove it!"
"Here's a picture of me with my hand waving at you while holding a sign with your username."
"That's probably your friend. You can't prove it's really you!"
"But-"
"And the broken pinky looks like it could be faked."
"You can tell that?"
"Yes."
"From a picture?"
"I know many things. I'm also a skilled ninja, a hacker... and Chuck Norris."
"You are not!"
"You can't disprove it!"

It's the internet. You can't prove anything... well, aside from who can rave the longest and last until the end of the thread.

It's like playing a game of pong where both players have infinite lives. Who's gonna walk away first? Are both players even gonna try or is that guy on the left just gonna frantically wave his paddle up and down while righty skillfully bats away every ball? Well and then other people join in too, and there's multiple paddles on the right now, and a few more on the left, and maybe even one or two at the top and bottom. The only way anyone wins is when they all choose to walk away.

Online religious debate threads never go well.
But listen, you know what it all boils down to? Respect.

If everyone would just have respect for each other then the world would be a better place. It's not a religious person's place to judge an Atheist, and it's not an Atheist's place to judge their religion. And it's not the Agnostic's place to stand in the middle, pointing at both of you saying, "You're both neither right nor wrong, because you can't prove that the other person doesn't exist (or does exist) in this version of the space-time continuum!"

Personally, I'm a Christian, but an Agnostic would most likely win most of these debates, if not all. By replying every time with "Prove it!".
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
Telika: ThoRn is not a very nice human.
avatar
ThoRn: 1. The one promising to serve you absolutely nothing at a potentially exorbitant cost to yourself via your soul (atheism).

2. Or the one promising to serve you steak and lobster and a fine wine at the very affordable cost of having had some faith in God (religion).
But, oh, is not ThoRn really a poppet for allowing his or her reasoning to be so easily followed! :-D

I thought it might be rather hard at 26 tabs, but... following a trail of below viewing threshold it was fine - which I personally disapprove of to an extent: if one is really obnoxious, I think a reply fair n' square should do.

The first post on tab 13 was somehow recycling the "gambler's" argument by Blaise Pascale - a French mathematician who came up with Roulette while trying to invent a mechanism of Perpetual Motion.

Blaise Pascal argued the following: shall one believe in (Christian) God in vain, it is merely a wasted effort of believing with zero return - but: shall one believe in God, and be right - the return is indefinitely great (= eternal salvation).

So, lose nothing, or gain everything!

I do understand what Blaise Pascal desires - but as apostle Paul also said: the Faith is not granted to Every Man (uskoa ei ole kaikille suotu). Yet, either way, one can behave well, faithful or less so.

Edit: getting the italics right. Plus simplifying. Plus adding the original ref.
Post edited January 28, 2014 by TStael
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
PaladinHeart: Online religious debate threads never go well.
But listen, you know what it all boils down to? Respect.

If everyone would just have respect for each other then the world would be a better place. It's not a religious person's place to judge an Atheist, and it's not an Atheist's place to judge their religion. And it's not the Agnostic's place to stand in the middle, pointing at both of you saying, "You're both neither right nor wrong, because you can't prove that the other person doesn't exist (or does exist) in this version of the space-time continuum!"

Personally, I'm a Christian, but an Agnostic would most likely win most of these debates, if not all. By replying every time with "Prove it!".
Respect - hopefully, but often not - what makes humans compassionate creatures, also make them conservative and narrow minded, is our intrinsic cooperative spirit that is based on cohesion. (Ref: Tomansello: Why We Cooperate)

But I do think: Jesus was a very revolutionary spirit, who failed in the cohesive bit - but inspired what ultimately became humanist spirit realized in the enlightenment; and the industrial revolution. Not least thanks to Calvin whom I think was quite instrumental to it.

I find it, as such, more important how we are inspired to behave when such compassion and conviction can be found to be our foundation - I cannot personally believe, yet shall I be wrong: I cannot believe either that God shall hate anything It has created.
Posted January 28, 2014
avatar
F4LL0UT: Which begs the question... is there the slightest change that somewhere in this fantastic universe, maybe galaxies away, there is a planet similar to Earth that is capable of giving birth to another Chuck Norris? And if they met, would the universe collapse? Sadly we will never know.
I'd rather see a world were Bruce Lee didn't die at such a young age and would put Chuck Norris in his place.
Pages:
1
25
32
33
34
35
36
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)