BF2S Forums Losing friends and alienating people

yeh sorry i meant the READ MY BIBLE READ MY BIBLE kind vs GOD ISNT REAL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH kinds rather than the BEHEAD THEM kind

Serial killers are psychopaths. There's a whole study of psychology devoted to it, which has nothing to do with whether or not someone is religious.

Ty wrote:

You'd think it'd be easier to tell yourself that the voices in your head were Divine Will if you were religious though. Just sayin'.

I've often thought the same thing. Or be persecuted by them as a result, hence the concept of exorcism.

Wreckognize wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

and in that regard, rabid atheists are as terrible as rabid catholics/muslims/pastafarians.

Fuck everything about this mentality.  Rabid Christians/Muslims commit suicide bombings and kill abortion doctors.  Rabid atheists campaign to have banners removed and act like smug assholes on the internet.

Right, so objecting to someone putting up an illegal banner is as bad as murder?

HaiBai wrote:

Ty wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

there's nothing irrational or illogical for having a belief in a god.  there's as much proof for religion as there is no proof, which is 0.  i can easily be religious and still believe in evolution or the big bang theory.

See I'd disagree on your first point. Given that no 'sides' have any proof the logical conclusion would be one of "we don't know" on the big questions. To a certain extent this comes from the belief that holy texts and religion are man-made but again, concluding that these are not man-made is not a conclusion based on logic. I wasn't saying that a belief in religion means someone can't make logical conclusions about other things either, merely pointing out that as this is the case why does logic go on holiday where religion is concerned?

because religion actively makes a difference in my life in a better way.  it would be illogical to stop believing in religion.  just because there isn't any concrete proof I can use in a debate doesn't mean that I don't have my own personal proof.

What you would call personal proof I would just call faith. Your perception I'm not questioning but I am saying that it is your decision to believe that religion actively has any impact. You could just as well put it down to luck or karma. It's a decision based on want/faith, not a conclusion based on evidence.

HaiBai wrote:

Ty wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

systematically rape children?  harass grieving families?  deny rights to others?

what are you talking about man?  is this some ridiculous mixed view between the 'priests touch little boys' stereotype and the westboro baptist church?

Systematic was a bit of a hyperbole but you can't deny that it happens too frequently to be considered one-offs. It's not a stereotype, simply an observation based on what has occurred. As to the rest - well yeah, religion is responsible for a lot of these things. People have justified countless atrocities in the name of faith, be they religion-based or otherwise, (faith in eugenics for example.) What I'm saying is that personally if I considered myself religious I'd be very unhappy with the establishment, enough that I wouldn't want to associate myself with it. The same way I wouldn't want myself to be associated with a corporation that exploited child labour in developing nations. Given that spirituality is a deeply personal thing I see no need for the wider establishment of religion that acts the way it does. I mean what purpose does the Vatican serve really? That's where I'm coming from anyway.

it's not systematic, it's not any more than the percentage of teacher who also molest children.  i'm not exactly thrilled with the catholic church either, i think i believe in personal faith a lot more than most catholics do, but i'm not going to throw away my belief for that reason alone.

Fair enough - like I said though; hyperbole. I take issue with how religion seems to get a free pass all too often in regard to this sort of thing, it seems to be forgiven far too often by both religious and non-religious. Just like any other atrocity really, as soon as the media gets bored so do we. My wider point is that with any other group responsible for the many atrocities that religion is responsible for - any religion - anyone would be very hesitant to associate with it. The fact it seems to be a minor consideration seems quite odd to me. I'm not saying it would cause a crisis of faith if people thought my way, more a divorcing of spirituality from traditional institutions.

HaiBai wrote:

Ty wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

you're trying to make religion seem like it's a person's way to come up with a reason for their existence, which simply isn't true.  i don't go to church or pray because i'm forced to, scared of going to hell, or trying to come up with a reason i exist.  i continue to explore my faith because it makes me a better person.  i don't mean that directly as in, "following the commandments gives me a good set of morals to follow that allow me to be a good contributor to society."  i mean, it makes me a better person because it helps me progress through life's challenges and hardships.  religion helps me become a stronger person.  sure, you can claim that i'm just weak and i have to resort to a religion to get through life's challenges, but at the same time i can claim you have no idea what you're talking about because you simply don't have the same insight into religion as i do.  you don't know what it feels like to have a faith or belief in a god, so i don't see how you can make arguments based on logic and rationale.

No I'm not, in fact I'm doing just the opposite. I'm saying that a person's character is not determined by their religion, that it is merely an aspect. That religion in itself is a luxury to those with faith - even if I do feel it is unnecessary to me. I don't think faith is necessarily a weakness, more a comforter. I have no issue with that either, people find comfort where they can and the Bible is convenient.

maybe not, but religion can definately help a person with their character.  if everyone lived by the ten commandments the world would be a much better place morally.  you can't deny that.  sure, it's unrealistic, but many people are able to live in that way and are better people for it.

I can very much deny that. I get so tired of these Ten Commandments being called the basis of human morality. They're not. What's more is that they're not even close. One, two, three and four are all about how you should worship God. Nothing moral or ethical there, just submission to authority. Keeping the Sabbath "holy" is supposed to be moral? Five is more submission to authority; honour thy father and mother. Nice idea but does this extend to the parents who abuse their kids? I get that you should respect your elders but I am of the very firm opinion that respect is earned not automatically granted. I honour my parents because they have earned my respect, not because there is any moral obligation for me to.

Six, (do not kill,) should be a given but I find it hard to believe that a book as bloody as the Bible should be lecturing me on killing anyone. When you think of the killing that has been done in the name of the Judaic God you have to wonder if anyone really took this to heart anyway. And the others - well for starters you can merge 'do not steal' and 'do not bear false witness' as simply 'be honest' and 'adultery' and 'coveting thy neighbours junk', (which I have a considerable problem with by the way but it could be seen as pedantic,) can merge without any meaning being lost either. What are we left with? Try not to kill, be honest and don't covet others stuff. Two and a half commandments tops.

Now let's go over what's not covered.

Racism, persecution, torture, slavery, child abuse, rape, and my personal favourite, genocide. You'd think I'd consider this covered under "do not kill". I don't. The reason for this is because a few books after the Ten Commandments what does God order? The complete annihilation of the Amalekites. It's either a completely mixed message or God considers genocide separate from murder.

So no, I don't think the Ten Commandments have any great role in determining morality or beneficially adding to anyone's character. Not even a little bit. At best they are irrelevant.

Bit of a rant there and sorry about that but it's one I've dealt with a lot.

HaiBai wrote:

Ty wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

there's another thing that truly bothers me about atheism in itself.  being a christian is about practicing christianity.  being a muslim is about practicing islam.  being an atheist is about practicing atheism.  oh wait, you can't practice atheism.  yet at the same time, atheists try to talk to theists about their religion.  it's ridiculous.

Well first I'd take issue with that assumption that being a Christian et al. is about practising Christianity et al. In terms of Christianity this means following the teachings of Christ - but how many Christians do you really think do this? This goes back to my point that religion and spirituality are a personal thing. A person's character is not significantly changed by whether or not they have faith. A Christian can use the teachings of Christ to do good things for themselves or others or they can use the teachings of Christ to swindle a lot of old ladies out of their retirement funds. Non-religious people are equally capable of using their own reasoning to justify their own actions to do similarly. But on to your main point: See with Miss Ahlquist seeking to take down the banner, she wasn't enforcing some atheist dogma here she was enforcing secularism. That's the key thing here, these militant atheists you see around wanting to take down nativity scenes or whatever aren't doing it based on the tenets of atheism, (or whatever,) they're just enforcing secularism. We've seen it on this thread; people are saying either get rid of the banner or put up banners reflecting every other faith. That doesn't seem to me like preaching non-belief although I won't deny that it does happen. But generally it's an old argument that has been going on between religious and non-religious alike for centuries; it's debating the big questions. See I don't feel like you're pressuring me to believe your way while we're having this discussion and I hope you don't feel that I'm pressuring you to believe mine.

yep, honestly, it doesn't really matter if your religious or what religion you have or you're not religious in determining if you go to heaven or hell or purgatory.  well, no one really knows honestly, but i along with tons of other people believe that way.  everyone will be judged based on whether they were good or bad, which is not defined by what religion you follow.  and this makes sense because becoming a certain religion is based on luck, which includes the time and place of your birth.

I'd say your right on that one, I think the 'spirit' of the whole thing can be taken down to Sunday School level; if you're good you go to Heaven, if you're bad you go to Hell. The Bible doesn't say this of course, in fact it's quite a lot more harsh, but human interpretation saves face in this instance.

HaiBai wrote:

i understand she was trying to enforce secularism, but seriously?  she can't simply take 'heavenly father' and use it as a metaphor towards her life in some way?  sure, i guess technically, she has the freedom to bitch about that.  i just can't believe someone is so uptight about a good message just because it contains two words she doesn't particularly believe in.

Each to there own I suppose. Like I said; I wouldn't have bothered. My point would be that both religious and non-religious people have agreed to secularism and given this the religious parties involved should understand that they are technically in the wrong they have no justification to persecute the girl for standing up for what both sides have concluded is right.

HaiBai wrote:

Ty wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

let's make a small analogy.  let's say there is a group called the VideoGamers and a group called the AVideoGamers, where the VideoGamers play video games while AVideoGamers dont.  there's tons of little subgeneres of VideoGamers who all enjoy their specific type of video games.  they enjoy playing them as hobbies and whatever else.  then, the AVideoGamers show up and start telling the VideoGamers that they're wasting their time, that video games lead to violence, and a bunch of other bullshit that they simply don't know what they're talking about because they simply don't know anything about video games.

that's basically how i feel about you making all of these opinions and assumptions on religion.  you don't know what you're talking about because you've never experienced religion.

No I've never experienced personal faith, I have experienced religion. You can't say an atheists's opinion is invalid anyway, what about the many atheists who were raised in religious environments and lost their faith? To tell you about my own background I was raised in a household that never seemed to have any religious direction. By my own disposition I read the Bible, (mostly the children's version,) I enjoyed the stories, I even went to a Christian camp. For the longest time I just assumed I was a Christian, (as did my parents,) but I realised that I just didn't believe any of the stories as fact. I keep up my interest though and continued learning about it for interest's sake which is why I still like getting involved in debates like this.

I get your analogy and where you're coming from with it but I don't think that a person's opinion on religion and faith can be discredited because they are not a part of a religion. It's like back when Lowing was arguing that Obama shouldn't have been a law lecturer because he never practised law, (he did.) -  It's not about the practise, it's about the knowledge. At least as far as religious debate goes.

yeah, i guess i was speaking more towards faith.  it just annoys me to see /r/atheism on reddit and watch them talk about atheism.  oh wait, that's impossible because there's nothing to discuss.  they actually just make fun of and laugh at every other religion in an ignorant way.  that's what truly bothers me.  not to mention, there are far too many atheists who believe they have the knowledge to argue about religion when they don't even come close.  they'll just read something on the internet and they'll feel like they just read the trump card that will convert all theists to atheists.  it's incredibly annoying

Yeah I understand that. There is a sort of smug self-superiority vibe in atheism and atheist arguments, the by-product of being the side that gets to attack all the time I guess. Religion doesn't really have that luxury so is constantly on defence as well as being the main weapon of their attacker. There will always be people who are stupid about it though, they'll come at you fast with something they thing is indisputable and upon making no headway with the first jab will retreat with a comment of "you're dumb and wrong". It's a similar attitude some environmentalists take come to think of it.

It's something you get on all sides of any debate though, I think atheism is just experiencing a bit of a coming out at the moment - until fairly recently it was still quite taboo and in some places still is - so it has a lot of growing up to do and risks turning into a "religion of non-belief". Also the Internet is a playground for anyone who wants to make a point.

HaiBai wrote:

Ty wrote:

HaiBai wrote:

the only reason that analogy doesn't work is because atheists should still fight for their rights.  they shouldn't let other people's beliefs get pushed onto them because they are free to believe whatever they want.

so basically, the only time atheists are really allowed to talk is when it involves them.  otherwise, they need to shut up and mind their own business

This is generally the case too. I have friends and family of varying beliefs, (aforementioned Atlantian guy,) and faith rarely comes up. No-one antagonises anyone else about what they do or don't believe. I still think religious debates are healthy, (and to me, fun,) but they're pretty inconsequential. No side's every really going to convince the other and a consensus is pretty damn unlikely - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. When it comes to a head though like in this case of the school banner I think both sides can be logical about it instead of panicking with one side saying "it's God being forced on our children", (it wasn't,)  and the other saying "atheism is trying to kill religion", (it's not.)

yeah, in my personal life, nobody seems to care what religion someone is.  yet, at the same time, i've read posts on bf2s where people have said something along the lines of "you're religious?  *runs away*" to people within their real lives.  or some people try to argue about religion and convert theists into atheists whenever they meet a theist

but then again, at the same time, i know for a fact that many theists try to convert atheists to their religion, which obviously won't work either.  telling an atheist that god is all-loving and will improve your life is like saying dinosaurs live on the moon.

in the end, it just boils down to the fact that there are lots of stupid people, and this stupidity pours out of them when it comes to religion.  because of the fact that the news only reports the stupid stuff, it's the reason theists and atheists, or more specifically, 'belief', have bad names

Amen brother.

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

its a tax payer funded school.  all religions or no religions

Was there evidence of them NOT putting up something from another religion?

How does doing two unconstitutional acts cancel out?

Not sure if it did or not. But merely having it there isn't unconstitutional. The first amendment states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This does not "make a law respecting the establishment of a religion" but one could easily argue that directing it be taken down violates the second clause regarding the free practice of religion.

And your point of "all religions or none" is only applicable if the school or government denied a display from another religion. Hence my question.

Read it. I'm not sure it was the most objective examination of the issue...

To apply the "within reason" qualifier only to the exercise clause and not the establishment clause shows a going-in bias. The two clauses should be equally applied in each case. Is the government denying the free exercise of religion by forcing any public display to be removed, regardless of the nature of it? I argue that they are. And apparently, that violation of the first amendment is just fine...particularly for those who have a case of the ass for religion in the first place.

One cannot rationally argue that the two clauses are equally weighted by the courts. But they should be, or else the writers wouldn't have put them both in there.