cbs poll on evolution vs. creationism

[Dark Moth]

A lot of it depends on how you define happiness.

Nah, it doesn't. Either you're happy, or you're not. And for most people, religion can't make them happy once their base needs are covered.

 

 

It's because most of the major world religions tend to encourage people to look beyond themselves and materialism and to also be content with what they have.

Sure. That's why the Pope has a country of his own, dresses made with gold, and some other "unimportant" material crap. Yup, selflessness 4tw.

 

 

It gives people guidance on how to live and how to treat others.  It provides a moral platform for many.

In absence of a laic moral and civic education, sure. But then again, it's not the spiritual part of religion you're talking about, but the mundane one. And isn't the mundane supposed to be rather irrelevant, while religion promotes spirituality?

So if the benefits come from the mundane part of religion, what's the spirituality good for?

 

Organized religion is actually a masterwork tool for control of the masses. You provide a moral framework so people don't go around murdering each other merrily, and then you provide the means to mess with people's consciences so you can control them easily.

 

 

Spiritually-wise, no.

Sorry, I fail to see the need for an intermediary between me and God, assuming that such a thing exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Let me rephrase that: I meant how one might think happiness can be found. Such as in money, possessions, friends, family, religion, etc.

 

2. Why don't you actually look at what the Bible says instead of looking at what the Pope does? The Pope is not the ultimate incarnation of perfect religion. Heck, I'm Protestant. I don't even really acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Church. Jesus was a carpenter, by the way, who was born in a barn... " And I wasn't just referring to Christianity, either.

 

3. Yup. Say whatever you want to believe. You can say that organized religion is a sort of mind control for the masses, which is what you seem to be hinting. Most organized religion, however, is built for the purpose of its own survival. A religion that has no roots, no basis to hold itself in, is doomed to die out. I always love it when people say they have no problem with the faith, yet cringe in terror when they hear anything about the institution of it. Basically it's like: "I have no problem with your faith. I just hate any public establishment of it." Yeah, that's real accepting.

 

4. Maybe not for you. But the issue isn't about you, is it? It's about them.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Mothman

[Hurlshort]

Most of the aggressive tendancies of Christianity and Islam stem from the fact that initially both Christians and Muslims came under heavy attacks from polytheists. In order for the religions to survive, they had to be adapted to protect themselves. They were pretty effective too...don't see many polytheists anymore.

[213374U]

2.  Why don't you actually look at what the Bible says instead of looking at what the Pope does?  The Pope is not the ultimate incarnation of perfect religion.  Heck, I'm Protestant.  I don't even really acknowledge the Pope as the head of the Church.  Jesus was a carpenter, by the way, who was born in a barn... "  And I wasn't just referring to Christianity, either. 

I was just making an example. Right, the Pope isn't exactly the paradigm of what Christ supposedly taught, but it doesn't matter. Look at the Caliphs. Look at Henry VIII. They all used (organized) religion for their own purposes. You say you're protestant, but even protestantism was in origin nothing but an excuse for standing against the Pope and his allies.

 

So, whatever.

 

 

Most organized religion, however, is built for the purpose of its own survival.  A religion that has no roots, no basis to hold itself in, is doomed to die out.  I always love it when people say they have no problem with the faith, yet cringe in terror when they hear anything about the institution of it.    Basically it's like: "I have no problem with your faith.  I just hate any public establishment of it."  Yeah, that's real accepting.

Oh? I guess that getting involved in world politics is just a way of "perpetuating" the cult, then. I guess that no religion could survive without a corporate-like layout. I guess that African animist traditions aren't really a religion, just like Eastern ancestry worshipping philosophies aren't, either. I guess that religion needs my money to survive, because I'm not worthy of teaching it myself to my sons.

 

And yeah, I have no problem with your faith. I just hate when people tries to use it to influence the way I think.

 

 

4.  Maybe not for you.  But the issue isn't about you, is it?

Again, if religion (as you seem to understand it) fills such a fundamental slot of your basic needs, how come you can't do it on your own? Do you need people to chew your food for you, too?

 

EDIT: Also, why the hell am I getting involved in yet another discussion about this? I thought I already said it's pointless. I must be getting stupider with each post.

Edited November 5, 2005 by 213374U

[Darth Launch]

We all end up as maggot food so what does it matter?

 

DL

[Commissar]

You say you're protestant, but even protestantism was in origin nothing but an excuse for standing against the Pope and his allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's blatantly incorrect. Numerous Protestant and pre-Protestant sects complained of the various excesses and impieties of the clergy, but those were not their only - or even their primary - motivations. Substantial theological differences about the very nature of the Christian religion that had their roots in heretical organizations as far back as 700AD came to fruition with Lutheranism, and later all the various others that followed it.

[213374U]

No, that's blatantly incorrect.  Numerous Protestant and pre-Protestant sects complained of the various excesses and impieties of the clergy, but those were not their only - or even their primary - motivations.  Substantial theological differences about the very nature of the Christian religion that had their roots in heretical organizations as far back as 700AD came to fruition with Lutheranism, and later all the various others that followed it.

Yeah, all that stuff about Mary being a virgin, right? I wasn't arguing Protestant tenets, or the spiritual reasons of the schism, or any of that crap.

 

The bottom line is that if the German princes hadn't taken up Protestantism as their chance to piss off the Pope and his disturbingly hegemonic allies, Protestantism would now be just a footnote in some theology manual, if anything.

 

Next time you're going to take a shot at what I'm saying, don't let yourself get carried away with the excitation, and pay attention.

[Dark Moth]

We all end up as maggot food so what does it matter?

 

DL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but what happens after we become maggot food?

 

BTW, I kinda miss your long sig...that link just doesn't suffice.

[Commissar]

Yeah, all that stuff about Mary being a virgin, right? I wasn't arguing Protestant tenets, or the spiritual reasons of the schism, or any of that crap.

 

The bottom line is that if the German princes hadn't taken up Protestantism as their chance to piss off the Pope and his disturbingly hegemonic allies, Protestantism would now be just a footnote in some theology manual, if anything.

 

Next time you're going to take a shot at what I'm saying, don't let yourself get carried away with the excitation, and pay attention. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, not too much about Mary, actually. But hey, you're the expert; I'm sure you're not wading hip-deep into a subject based solely on mistaken opinions and an extremely vague knowledge of history.

 

I'll take shots wherever I like; if you can't be bothered to make your points clearly, I'm not going to fault myself for taking you to task. That's the sort of lesson you're going to have to learn as you get older.

[Darth Launch]

Yeah, but what happens after we become maggot food? 

 

BTW, I kinda miss your long sig...that link just doesn't suffice. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We all burn in Hell

 

DL

 

P.S. About my sig.... it seems it was illegal and my wrist was very firmly slapped

[Gabrielle]

Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If such places existed.

[213374U]

I'll take shots wherever I like; if you can't be bothered to make your points clearly, I'm not going to fault myself for taking you to task.  That's the sort of lesson you're going to have to learn as you get older.

Funny you would say that, considering that I don't see your point in that post, nor how does any of that patronising have anything to do with the discussion. You're just proving that you were merely taking a shot at me and what I was saying, and that your actual interest in the conversation is marginal.

 

But hey, I guess that derailing discussions and making them personal is a lesson that I'll learn as I get older, too.

[Commissar]

I'll take shots wherever I like; if you can't be bothered to make your points clearly, I'm not going to fault myself for taking you to task.  That's the sort of lesson you're going to have to learn as you get older.

Funny you would say that, considering that I don't see your point in that post, nor how does any of that patronising have anything to do with the discussion. You're just proving that you were merely taking a shot at me and what I was saying, and that your actual interest in the conversation is marginal.

 

But hey, I guess that derailing discussions and making them personal is a lesson that I'll learn as I get older, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lutheranism was already far more widespread before the start of the Thirty Years War than any other heresy the Catholic church had faced, and despite active inquisitions and harsh punishments for those found guilty of heresy.

 

Protestant outposts were prominent in France, a few parts of Spain, Languedoc, the Low Countries, and yes, Germany. Futhermore, after the actual war was concluded, Lutheranism spread primarily not from the territories under control of Protestant rulers that were allowed to remain Protestant, but from the 'illegal' pockets of Protestants throughout the rest of Europe - it could be said that German theologians and Protestant lay-preachers sort of sat back on their heels and let the French, Swiss, and Italians do their work for them.

 

So while the conflict itself may have shaped the way Lutheranism developed in Germany, I'd reckon it had minimal impact on the other parts of Europe that were primarily responsible for its promulgation.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Commissar

[213374U]

Lutheranism was already far more widespread before the start of the Thirty Years War than any other heresy the Catholic church had faced, and despite active inquisitions and harsh punishments for those found guilty of heresy.

 

Protestant outposts were prominent in France, a few parts of Spain, Languedoc, the Low Countries, and yes, Germany.  Futhermore, after the actual war was concluded, Lutheranism spread primarily not from the territories under control of Protestant rulers that were allowed to remain Protestant, but from the 'illegal' pockets of Protestants throughout the rest of Europe - it could be said that German theologians and Protestant lay-preachers sort of sat back on their heels and let the French, Swiss, and Italians do their work for them.

 

So while the conflict itself may have shaped the way Lutheranism developed in Germany itself, I'd reckon it had minimal impact on the other parts of Europe that were primarily responsible for its promulgation.

It seems I was wrong, then.

[Commissar]

And people say there's no use for a minor in theology.

[metadigital]

If absolute physical proof is what you require in order to believe in something such as Jesus' divinity (th[at] He is God's son), then you will not find the proof. It's a matter of faith in this case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lucky for you.

In faith, I take the Holy Bible to be the infallible words of God (written by people inspired by God. 2 timothy 3:16). Would God allow His words to get corrupted? I doubt that. Therefore, the Holy Bible is what I base my beliefs in.

 

[metadigital]

was I being discriminatory?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only with everything you have written about religion.

I apologize if I was.

... if you can show me which metaphors I have been taking literally, then I will surely change my position. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Start with Genesis and work forward.

... Oden impaled himself on his spear gungnir on Yggdrasil and hung dead for many days and nights to find wisdom ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I didn't know it was lost. (Badump-tish!)

2. Did he find it, or is this why Odin hasn't been heard of since Christianity "converted" the Nordic heathens ...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. It was.. by your mum! (Ka-dish!)

2. He did find wisdom after his quests. I dont remeber if he learned from all of them or if it specificly was when he drank of the water in the spring of widom by the roots of Yggdrasil(which he had to sacrifice his eye to do)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. dang! And I thought all the problems were over after pandora ...

2. Sounds like a parable with a moral, kids ... remember don't drink to excess around stray bushes, you might lose an eye ..!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word.

...

[Dark Moth]

You know what meta? Your condescending, intolerant attitude toward religion in general is just apalling in every way. The only one being condescending here is you. You know, for all the times you guys claim Christians persecute others, you are doing the same thing here. But you aren't one for details, are you?

 

As for your attempt to debunk the Genesis accounts, the original Hebrew actually reads closer to "When the Lord God made the heavens..." it does not say that it was the same day. It does not contradict itself. And even if it did say "day", "day" too can be used figuratively, such as to describe a time period, not a single, literal day. I thought even you would know that.

 

I don't have to justify my faith to you, especially if you insist on having this snobbish attitude toward it. Yes, I do take a lot of the Bible literally. So there! That is my faith, and that is what I choose to believe. You accuse others of intolerance, yet still carry on your "I art holier than thou", "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude with everything! I guess manners are beyond you, becuase many other self-proclaimed atheists on this board have posted more respectfully and more maturely than you have. You're so quick to smite others for their opinions, yet hold your own to be, well, GOSPEL. If this is how you treat everyone, then I pity any Christian who has the misfortune of meeting you in real life.

 

As a Christian, yes, I do believe my beliefs are right. I do not believe that Buddha or Brahmen are real gods! Does that mean I have a right to go about telling everyone else they're wrong, that they're foolish and ignorant? NO. Yet that is exactly what you and others on this board are doing. You can try to argue your case. Throw out some of your big words and try to make yourself feel like a big man. But I guarantee you this: you WON'T win that fight. Adios, besugo.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

I don't have to justify my faith to you, especially if you insist on having this snobbish attitude toward it.  Yes, I do take a lot of the Bible literally.  So there!  That is my faith, and that is what I choose to believe.  You accuse others of intolerance, yet still carry on your "I art holier than thou", "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude with everything!  I guess manners are beyond you, becuase many other self-proclaimed atheists on this board have posted more respectfully and more maturely than you have.  You're so quick to smite others for their opinions, yet hold your own to be, well, GOSPEL.  If this is how you treat everyone, then I pity any Christian who has the misfortune of meeting you in real life. 

 

As a Christian, yes, I do believe my beliefs are right.  I do not believe that Buddha or Brahmen are real gods!  Does that mean I have a right to go about telling everyone else they're wrong, that they're foolish and ignorant?  NO.  Yet that is exactly what you and others on this board are doing.  You can try to argue your case.  Throw out some of your big words and try to make yourself feel like a big man.  But I guarantee you this: you WON'T win that fight.  Adios, besugo. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're correct, you don't have to justify your faith to anyone, just as I don't have to justify my lack of faith...except in cases where you want to, in some manner or another, impose that faith on society as a whole. But the real kicker is, I still don't. Atheism isn't a religion of any sort; people like to make out atheism as a secular religion or something, but as I've said repeatedly, it's defined by a lack of belief, not an anti-belief.

 

Why am I telling you this? Because as long as you're not trying to get your religion into, for example, the public school system, then you're fine. You can tell us all to screw off and believe what you want. But when you support such efforts, you have to be willing to accept the fact that we're arguing against it.

 

There's a lot of this persecuted majority stuff going on these days, and people like to suggest that atheists talk about religion more than Christians. The bottom line is, if I don't know your faith in the first place, I'm not going to complain about it, am I?

[taks]

i'm just waiting on the intelligent falling arguments... i'll chime in then.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

And people say there's no use for a minor in theology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

BWAhahahahahahaha

 

 

~~~

 

Ahem.

 

Way back, you said I would have a hard time claiming things like the crusades and the Inquisition were not religious. But even the most cursory reading of the crusades reveals the preoccupation of the commanders and men with booty. The Inquisition seems a little more religious, judging by the rail transcripts I've read. But at the same time it was clearly used as a means of imposing conformity in all areas of life, not just preventing the worship of devils. And it was this feature of enforcing conformity that made it so useful to the Powers at the time, and allowed it free reign.

 

~~~

 

Points to everyone using actual quotes. So far as I can see all we are proving is that verses from both peacefu and warlike views exist in all the major holy texts. The politicals can thereby use the books either way. But it is politics that is to blame. The desire in humans to weild influence and achieve status. I look at Iain Paisley, or Muqtada Sadr and although they are from utterly different cultural and religious backgrounds I see the same 'faith' - in themselves. It is this arrogance which to blame, not the faith which they wrap themselves in.

[metadigital]

You know what meta?  Your condescending, intolerant attitude toward religion in general is just apalling in every way.  The only one being condescending here is you.  You know, for all the times you guys claim Christians persecute others, you are doing the same thing here.  But you aren't one for details, are you? 

 

As for your attempt to debunk the Genesis accounts, the original Hebrew actually reads closer to "When the Lord God made the heavens..." it does not say that it was the same day.  It does not contradict itself.  And even if it did say "day", "day" too can be used figuratively, such as to describe a time period, not a single, literal day.  I thought even you would know that. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure why YOU are moaning at me, I was not taking a swipe at Christianity in general (though your reading comprehension has never been at an intimidating level) I was pointing out to the fundamentalist that there are literal inconsistencies in the Bible as represented in the English lagnuage she/he was using to convey it's/God's message. See the difference?

I don't have to justify my faith to you, especially if you insist on having this snobbish attitude toward it.  Yes, I do take a lot of the Bible literally.  So there! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So there. (linky)

That is my faith, and that is what I choose to believe.  You accuse others of intolerance, yet still carry on your "I art holier than thou", "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude with everything!  I guess manners are beyond you, becuase many other self-proclaimed atheists on this board have posted more respectfully and more maturely than you have.  You're so quick to smite others for their opinions, yet hold your own to be, well, GOSPEL.  If this is how you treat everyone, then I pity any Christian who has the misfortune of meeting you in real life. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not YOUR belief, it is the common belief of a few billion people (more or less: more or less common, that is: some major points are argued in the various schisms). Don't be so boastful, arrogant and proud, Mr Christian.

As a Christian, yes, I do believe my beliefs are right.  I do not believe that Buddha or Brahmen are real gods!  Does that mean I have a right to go about telling everyone else they're wrong, that they're foolish and ignorant?  NO.  Yet that is exactly what you and others on this board are doing.  You can try to argue your case.  Throw out some of your big words and try to make yourself feel like a big man.  But I guarantee you this: you WON'T win that fight.  Adios, besugo. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I do not say others are wrong for believing whatever fairy tale they want to: I object to people telling me what to believe OR trying to adulterate scientific method to accommodate concepts that are strictly (in the logical postivism sense) unscientific.

 

Perhaps if you actually had something to say, rather than just wanting to take a shot at me for not believing what you believe, we might actually have a conversation.

 

KTHNXBYE

[Calax]

AHEM

 

boom

[Surreptishus]

Mothman's response may include something about him not being catholic thereby deftly avoiding the issues raised the articles meta posted.

 

EDIT: But it didnt....

 

Meta's post could be construed as an attack but it is perfectly justified given the context, pay attention to the thread title people

 

If nothing more it is an antithesis to what Blank posted.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Surreptishus

[Dark Moth]

You know what meta?  Your condescending, intolerant attitude toward religion in general is just apalling in every way.  The only one being condescending here is you.  You know, for all the times you guys claim Christians persecute others, you are doing the same thing here.  But you aren't one for details, are you? 

 

As for your attempt to debunk the Genesis accounts, the original Hebrew actually reads closer to "When the Lord God made the heavens..." it does not say that it was the same day.  It does not contradict itself.  And even if it did say "day", "day" too can be used figuratively, such as to describe a time period, not a single, literal day.  I thought even you would know that. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure why YOU are moaning at me, I was not taking a swipe at Christianity in general (though your reading comprehension has never been at an intimidating level) I was pointing out to the fundamentalist that there are literal inconsistencies in the Bible as represented in the English lagnuage she/he was using to convey it's/God's message. See the difference?

I don't have to justify my faith to you, especially if you insist on having this snobbish attitude toward it.  Yes, I do take a lot of the Bible literally.  So there! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So there. (linky)

That is my faith, and that is what I choose to believe.  You accuse others of intolerance, yet still carry on your "I art holier than thou", "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude with everything!  I guess manners are beyond you, becuase many other self-proclaimed atheists on this board have posted more respectfully and more maturely than you have.  You're so quick to smite others for their opinions, yet hold your own to be, well, GOSPEL.  If this is how you treat everyone, then I pity any Christian who has the misfortune of meeting you in real life. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not YOUR belief, it is the common belief of a few billion people (more or less: more or less common, that is: some major points are argued in the various schisms). Don't be so boastful, arrogant and proud, Mr Christian.

As a Christian, yes, I do believe my beliefs are right.  I do not believe that Buddha or Brahmen are real gods!  Does that mean I have a right to go about telling everyone else they're wrong, that they're foolish and ignorant?  NO.  Yet that is exactly what you and others on this board are doing.  You can try to argue your case.  Throw out some of your big words and try to make yourself feel like a big man.  But I guarantee you this: you WON'T win that fight.  Adios, besugo. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I do not say others are wrong for believing whatever fairy tale they want to: I object to people telling me what to believe OR trying to adulterate scientific method to accommodate concepts that are strictly (in the logical postivism sense) unscientific.

 

Perhaps if you actually had something to say, rather than just wanting to take a shot at me for not believing what you believe, we might actually have a conversation.

 

KTHNXBYE

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Go over your previous posts. You may not want to admit it, but what you were doing was directly attacking the faith itself. You basically dismissed every single instance in the Bible that you deemed unscientific and called it a "fairy tale". By doing that, you were dismissing some of its tenants as untrue. You were attacking the faith. Attacking the Bible in certain areas can also be attacking the faith. I have knews for you, smart guy: it's RELIGION. Every religion requires you to take some leap of faith that is not scientific. So yes, it may not be scientific to say there were sorcerors, or that there is a God, but that is where faith comes in. You are obviously being too dim-witted or stuck up to see how your own posts are attacking the faith itself. My gripe wasn't that you were arguing your point, you just chose to do so in a, boastful, condescending matter.

 

2. Man, you are thick. Of course I didn't mean it was MY faith alone, genius. I'm well aware that Christianity is a shared belief. But it is my belief in the sense that I chose to follow it. Do you understand, now that I've had to explain it to you?

 

3. Once again, it is religion, so not all of it is going to be scientific! But that does not mean you had to go and degrade it as you did. You still don't think your words were insulting? You really are thick. And Blank never said your beliefs were wrong, he was stating his beliefs. You were the one to step up and tell him he was wrong. You were the one taking shots first. But since courtesy has always seemed beyond you, I guess it's just your nature to be arrogant and stuck-up.

 

So in short, don't be so boastful, arrogant and proud, Mr. Atheist.

 

@Surreptishus: No, I'm not a Catholic. I revel in my Protestantism.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Mothman

[metadigital]

Boring.

 

1. The bible is a fairy tale. Get over it. Just because you believe it is true, doesn't magically make it so.

 

2. Really punching above your mental weight now, aren't you? Okay, I'll make this simple for you: I wasn't implying that you had a special unique "Mothman" religion [sic passim], I was pointing out just how hypocritical you are, preaching christian values with one face and making non-christian comments with the other. Understand now, Janus?

 

Hypocrisy like this is the basis for religious conflict: the gap between your religion and your shortcomings is directly causing THIS CONFLICT, like so many before.

 

3. (Who knows why you are using this obscure numbering system that bears no resemblance to the points I made, but as I have already soundly answered all the previous posts I shall continue to demolish these three.) I was merely giving the fundamentalist what s/he asked for: metaphors that they might contemplate to re-consider their literal interpretation.

 

Insulting? Perhaps; not as insulting as fundamentalist comments are to someone who sees the evil of the seditious co-opting of scientific method by those too ignorant or insipid to understand what is fact and what is belief, and the gap twixt.

 

And evangelising, like the fundamentalist was doing, is very insulting to the other billions of people on this planet: most of whom are very sure that their religion is THE TRUTH and do not appreciate another passively-aggressively trying to bully them into another faith. Got it? Baha'i is an example of a non-threatening religion. Check out what the "neutral" dictionary.com says about this religion here. Do these comments seem harsh? Or are you proposing a double standard because it's YOUR religion I'm trying to debunk?

 

You bet I'll take issue with anyone who purports to have the meaning of life "because God told me so": I see this as a direct enemy of the progress of science. That is an anathema to all thinking beings, and I will oppose it whilst I can breathe.

 

4. Who the hell said I was an athiest? One day you may travel outside the insular little landscape you have infested, like a goldfish in a ten litre glass bowl, and ONLY then will your opinion start to have a scintilla of credibility. Until then you are just another bawling little baby who wants to be right all the time, regardless of the real world outside.