This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Christianity - The Horse that Refuses to Die
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
When I said they where universally known for it, I meant in the world of child molestation. And yes, this is largely due to the media frenzy about it.
Footballers are universally known to be packs of bogan gang-rapists. That doesn't mean that any individual footballer, nor football generally, promotes gang rape.
Again:
It's strawman - attacking things that appear to be related to Christianity, when in reality, they're related to people whom mainstream Christianity would also shun. It's very easy to identify extreme views in a large community of people, and you can do exactly the same thing (alien abduction, anyone? "Evidence of aliens is evidence against God"?) to the Atheist community as well.
Post by
Gone
I dont make forum posts attacking atheism. And im not saying calling gays lesser people, just saying what you just said about religion.
Suppose somone was to use the same arguments here against religion, only against gays. If you go up to a gay person and say you "disagree with their lifestyle" do you think they wouldnt be offended by that?
I think you may be confused. I did not create this thread.
Also, while you may not agree, I view discrimination against minorities as a separate entity than disagreeing about religion.
I didnt say you were, the post I made a few posts back was more directed at this thread in general.
And no discrimintaing against peoples religion is no different than discrimination against minoritys, you may not think so but most people including the supreme court would disagree with you, Religious discrimination is listed right up there with race, sexual orientation, and disabilitys.
I am not discriminating against anyone's religion! Where did you get that? Discussing differences of opinion on ones spiritual beliefs is far from discriminating against them. And if you do think of them as the same thing, then you are just as guilty as I am since you are also voicing your opinion on the matter.
I didnt say you were, you said that you dont consider discriminating against minoritys and religon not the same thing, I was just pointing out that they are the same, I never said you were discriminating.
Post by
ExDementia
I dont make forum posts attacking atheism. And im not saying calling gays lesser people, just saying what you just said about religion.
Suppose somone was to use the same arguments here against religion, only against gays. If you go up to a gay person and say you "disagree with their lifestyle" do you think they wouldnt be offended by that?
I think you may be confused. I did not create this thread.
Also, while you may not agree, I view discrimination against minorities as a separate entity than disagreeing about religion.
I didnt say you were, the post I made a few posts back was more directed at this thread in general.
And no discrimintaing against peoples religion is no different than discrimination against minoritys, you may not think so but most people including the supreme court would disagree with you, Religious discrimination is listed right up there with race, sexual orientation, and disabilitys.
I am not discriminating against anyone's religion! Where did you get that? Discussing differences of opinion on ones spiritual beliefs is far from discriminating against them. And if you do think of them as the same thing, then you are just as guilty as I am since you are also voicing your opinion on the matter.
I didnt say you were, you said that you dont consider discriminating against minoritys and religon not the same thing, I was just pointing out that they are the same, I never said you were discriminating.
Either way, that is not applicable to this thread.
Post by
Gone
I dont make forum posts attacking atheism. And im not saying calling gays lesser people, just saying what you just said about religion.
Suppose somone was to use the same arguments here against religion, only against gays. If you go up to a gay person and say you "disagree with their lifestyle" do you think they wouldnt be offended by that?
I think you may be confused. I did not create this thread.
Also, while you may not agree, I view discrimination against minorities as a separate entity than disagreeing about religion.
I didnt say you were, the post I made a few posts back was more directed at this thread in general.
And no discrimintaing against peoples religion is no different than discrimination against minoritys, you may not think so but most people including the supreme court would disagree with you, Religious discrimination is listed right up there with race, sexual orientation, and disabilitys.
I am not discriminating against anyone's religion! Where did you get that? Discussing differences of opinion on ones spiritual beliefs is far from discriminating against them. And if you do think of them as the same thing, then you are just as guilty as I am since you are also voicing your opinion on the matter.
I didnt say you were, you said that you dont consider discriminating against minoritys and religon not the same thing, I was just pointing out that they are the same, I never said you were discriminating.
Either way, that is not applicable to this thread.
Yes it is, when the Op titles it "christianity, the horse that refuses to die" and links some ridiculas site like that, its only natural people would get offended. Ill say again, if I made a post called "Homosexuality the horse that refuses to die" and said everything the OP did, word for word, only replaced 'christian' out with 'gay' then it would get shut down, no question.
Post by
OverZealous
And this is why religous discussions are bad for your health. They all end with two sides (in this case, perhaps more than two?) sides picking on the lack of evidence or logic in the other side's beliefs.
Come on, we have some really good debaters here, can't we all just... get along? Have a good, objective discussion of each others' beliefs? -.-
Post by
HoleofArt
Yes it is, when the Op titles it "christianity, the horse that refuses to die" and links some ridiculas site like that, its only natural people would get offended. Ill say again, if I made a post called "Homosexuality the horse that refuses to die" and said everything the OP did, word for word, only replaced 'christian' out with 'gay' then it would get shut down, no question.
Except.. no? As I stated, I'm not attacking anything. I'm linking a site I randomly Stumble!-ed upon. It wasn't meant to be taken as me forcing anything down anyone's throat. Not once did I say anything about converting to Atheism or forsaking Christianity. I asked a few questions about the claims made in the Bible. If you get offended by that, then I don't know what to tell you.
How, then, is homosexuality even applicable? The only place your analogy works is in the title, and even then it could be referring to gay-rights or something else far less... I don't know... incorrect?
Post by
Skreeran
To argue against religion, I don't need to show how the Catholic church covered up child molestation. I don't need to go into how many wars were started over religious differences. I don't need to bring up the Inquisition or the Salem's Witch trials or 9/11. I don't need to go over how ridiculous it is that some 40% of Americans believe the universe is only 6000-10,000 years old. I don't need to point out that it's frankly unsettling that the most popular religion in the world relies upon an ancient book written by desert nomads (and later revised by slightly more advanced desert people) that sanctions genocide, slavery, religious intolerance, rape, and and the killing of children. I don't need to go into all that.
All I need to argue against religion is to ask: "What evidence do you have?"
Post by
chaosultimamage
All I need to argue against religion is to ask: "What evidence do you have?"
To which they will always answer with something completely ambiguous like -
"He's in my heart and that's all the evidence I need"
or
"What evidence do you have that he doesn't exist?"
It's fun to talk about sometimes, but the discussions never get anywhere, hence I stopped bothering to reply.
Post by
xaratherus
Yes it is, when the Op titles it "christianity, the horse that refuses to die" and links some ridiculas site like that, its only natural people would get offended. Ill say again, if I made a post called "Homosexuality the horse that refuses to die" and said everything the OP did, word for word, only replaced 'christian' out with 'gay' then it would get shut down, no question.
Except.. no? As I stated, I'm not attacking anything. I'm linking a site I randomly Stumble!-ed upon. It wasn't meant to be taken as me forcing anything down anyone's throat. Not once did I say anything about converting to Atheism or forsaking Christianity. I asked a few questions about the claims made in the Bible. If you get offended by that, then I don't know what to tell you.
How, then, is homosexuality even applicable? The only place your analogy works is in the title, and even then it could be referring to gay-rights or something else far less... I don't know... incorrect?
If you consider the original post as 'forcing his beliefs down your throat', then you and I have very different definitions of 'forcing' Ryjacork.
I know it's beating an old drum, but: I'm gay. Because of efforts by organizations which (primarily) consider themselves Christian in nature, if I fall in love, I cannot get married to the person I love in most states, even though we are both consenting adults and despite the fact that our government is supposed to have a separation of church and state.
So if protesting against this impediment of my civil rights is forcing my beliefs down the throats of Christians, then I hope they choke on them.
Debating a belief, pointing out what you see as fallacies or errors in the beliefs of others - that is
not
forcing your beliefs down the throat of someone else. Hole posted this in an off-topic forum. You
chose
to read it and enter the debate. How is that 'forcing' you to do anything? It's not. If there are any beliefs in your throat, it's because you voluntarily came into this restaurant and chose to swallow them.
Post by
Skreeran
All I need to argue against religion is to ask: "What evidence do you have?"
To which they will always answer with something completely ambiguous like -
"He's in my heart and that's all the evidence I need"
or
"What evidence do you have that he doesn't exist?"
It's fun to talk about sometimes, but the discussions never get anywhere, hence I stopped bothering to reply.Of course.
But occasionally... Occasionally there are rational people out there who really consider it and consider it hard, and come to the same conclusion I did. It's happened once that I know of (though it may have happened more and I just never heard of it), and it's because of that that I keep trying. I believe that religion is not only factually incorrect, but is also often a harmful force in the world, and so I do what I can to dismantle it, even if it's just one person at a time.
Post by
ExDementia
When I said they where universally known for it, I meant in the world of child molestation. And yes, this is largely due to the media frenzy about it.
Footballers are universally known to be packs of bogan gang-rapists. That doesn't mean that any individual footballer, nor football generally, promotes gang rape.
Again:
It's strawman - attacking things that appear to be related to Christianity, when in reality, they're related to people whom mainstream Christianity would also shun. It's very easy to identify extreme views in a large community of people, and you can do exactly the same thing (alien abduction, anyone? "Evidence of aliens is evidence against God"?) to the Atheist community as well.
Come on, Squish.... You can't think that I think that, or was even trying to say that "every priest is a child rapist". I just said that I have friends who are pastors.
Post by
chaosultimamage
But occasionally... Occasionally there are rational people out there who really consider it and consider it hard, and come to the same conclusion I did. It's happened once that I know of (though it may have happened more and I just never heard of it), and it's because of that that I keep trying. I believe that religion is not only factually incorrect, but is also often a harmful force in the world, and so I do what I can to dismantle it, even if it's just one person at a time.
I completely agree. We've seen countless times throughout history, and even ongoing right this moment, how religion holds back science and human rights, starts wars, and teaches radically incorrect ideals.
As I've also noted in several posts (if not in this thread, then in the actual religion thread), I have no problem with the fundamental ideals of Christianity. Be good to your fellow man, don't steal, don't kill, etc... but the whole "have to believe in a magical being or go to hell" thing is just silly and is nothing more than a crutch / bribe.
On the topic of the Catholic priests, I did mention this in another thread, probably RB, but yeah. I've just always wondered why, when you hear about this, it's not only children that the priests are doing this with, but always little boys. I guess they're just trying to "kill two birds with one stone" as it were? Or rather, "if you're going to do it, do it all the way"?
Post by
OverZealous
I believe HSR(who, lets be honest, usually had his facts straight) posted in his "Questions to a Catholic" some statistics on child molestation in the world, and compared it to child molestation commited by priests.
Cóuld someone dig that out?
Post by
Skreeran
On the topic of the Catholic priests, I did mention this in another thread, probably RB, but yeah. I've just always wondered why, when you hear about this, it's not only children that the priests are doing this with, but always little boys. I guess they're just trying to "kill two birds with one stone" as it were? Or rather, "if you're going to do it, do it all the way"?If I recall correctly, it's because priests have to take a vow of celibacy, so if they were to do it with a girl, they'd be breaking their vows.
Don't quote me on that though.
Post by
ExDementia
On the topic of the Catholic priests, I did mention this in another thread, probably RB, but yeah. I've just always wondered why, when you hear about this, it's not only children that the priests are doing this with, but always little boys. I guess they're just trying to "kill two birds with one stone" as it were? Or rather, "if you're going to do it, do it all the way"?If I recall correctly, it's because priests have to take a vow of celibacy, so if they were to do it with a girl, they'd be breaking their vows.
Don't quote me on that though.
Well if that's the case I half forgive them then. At least they aren't breaking their vows...
(Hey look, I just quoted you on that!)
Post by
chaosultimamage
On the topic of the Catholic priests, I did mention this in another thread, probably RB, but yeah. I've just always wondered why, when you hear about this, it's not only children that the priests are doing this with, but always little boys. I guess they're just trying to "kill two birds with one stone" as it were? Or rather, "if you're going to do it, do it all the way"?If I recall correctly, it's because priests have to take a vow of celibacy, so if they were to do it with a girl, they'd be breaking their vows.
Don't quote me on that though.
If that were it, then they are definitely the kings of semantics...
Post by
Dragalthor
Ok I admit it, I have bitten, but where does it say that Religion and Science can't stand side by side? I was first taught in a Church of England school and I was taught about the Big Bang theory et. al. Contrary to popular opinion just because you are a Christian doesn't mean that you immediately forsake all scientific empirical evidence because it woz God that done it all. I am lucky to count amongst my friends people who have Phd's in Biology (my former parish priest) and two very eminent Physicists who attended my local parish church. These people have spent their lives furthering scientific processes and understanding of the the world and the universe around us. They are still Christians and believe in God.
I don't need to point out that it's frankly unsettling that the most popular religion in the world relies upon an ancient book written by desert nomads (and later revised by slightly more advanced desert people) that sanctions genocide, slavery, religious intolerance, rape, and and the killing of children. I don't need to go into all that.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Can you point out where in any of the major religious scripts it specifically states that genocide, slavery, religious intolerance, rape and the killing of children please as I have never seen or read any of this. I was brought up as a Christian but allowed to go my own way when I wanted to. I was also taught that the bible is a collection of diverse stories that show us how our lives should be lived and not used as religious dogma to preach falshoods.
Also for those that wish to lump all of us Christians in the very small minority of religious fundamentalist who do indeed preach hatred. What about all the, primarily Christian, charities that try go out and bring much needed aid to people who would die otherwise? Charities like
Christian Aid
or
Operation Mobilisation
. Yes there is a religious message being relayed behind all the aid but charity and aid are given to all who need it regardless of creed or colour.
Post by
Patty
I completely agree. We've seen countless times throughout history, and even ongoing right this moment, how religion holds back science and human rights, starts wars, and teaches radically incorrect ideals.
However, there have also been cases of the reverse. Particularly "holding back science and human rights,". It's difficult to generalise, but my view is that religion played its part in society well as it was required; just as tribalism once did and fuedalism. Now, however, with evidence mounting up to the contrary of many religious beliefs, the need for religion has significantly diminished, and the exploration into science is increasing. Morality need no longer be based on religion, the human rights and animal rights laws should guide society, rather than faith or cultural differences, which as you're right
have
indeed sparked violence on many occasions.
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
Post by
Dragalthor
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
I'll take your word on it Patty but I'd still like to know about the rape and child killing etc.
Post by
chaosultimamage
Edit: Drag, a lot of the Old Testament shows God encouraging and glorifying genocide.
Genocide, yes, and just killing as well. Then, outside of The Bible, you have the people who practice Christianity taking the words and teachings and using them in literal or sometimes extreme metaphorical interpretations, such as the Crusades. The people who orchestrated the Crusades and the Inquisition are essentially the founding fathers of modern Christianity.
@ Drag - the child killing is mentioned in some of ExDementia's initial posts and in the other religion thread. The easiest point is one of the dude's killing his son because God tells him too, even though there is no legitimate reason to do so. Given, in the story, God stops him before he actually does it, but still...that kind of blind faith is dangerous.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.