Capitalism is un-Christian.

[Qistina]

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?

 

 

They are corrupted, they corrupt the teaching, corrupt the religion, that's why Jesus against them is it not?

 

Maybe there are things we can learn from Jews, only good things of course...but what are the good things about them anyway?

[Gorgon]

How can they 'corrupt the teachings' when they were there first. Doesn't seem possible. Have they been writing appendices to the Koran ?

[Gorgon]

I suppose this would be a good time to mention that we have to keep this within the context of a discussion about religion. Not about the various attributes of 'Jews' 

[BruceVC]

 

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?

 

 

They are corrupted, they corrupt the teaching, corrupt the religion, that's why Jesus against them is it not?

 

Maybe there are things we can learn from Jews, only good things of course...but what are the good things about them anyway?

 

Well you could learn many things from the Jewish community....I would say the first thing should be how the Jews care about other Jews. They really care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, most of the Islamic world doesn't seem to care too much about other Muslims if its an inconvenience ....like the Syrian refugees and how the Sunni countries in the Middle East don't want to take in any refugees 

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Yep, I hate it how some athiests try to coerce agnostics into believing they are athiests, as an agnostic I am very fervent in my beliefs, even if it is "We don't know either way."

If a religion demands you do an action and you do not do this action due to a lack of evidence of needing to do it this would qualify as "disbelief".

 

I too entertain there's a small possibility of there being a god or gods but seeing there is no evidence for this I act on the assumption there isn't. Call it what you will but I find the "I'm not an atheist I'm agnostic" to be less about philosophical accuracy and more about tip-toeing around people's religious beliefs and not wanting to look like one of those nu-atheist types.

 

Disbelief in one religion, does not mean I don't believe in another religion.  I think trying to claim groups like Buddhists are 'athiests too!!!' like many do is intellectually dishonest.  Someone who does not believe in god because they believe only the material world exists is more different from a person who believes there isn't a god but there is reincarnation than someone who believes there is a god.  As an agnostic, I have decided that there isn't enough evidence to discount one side or the other, I will go by current scientific understanding.  Athiests are those who have already decided to believe there is no god, that is the original intended meaning for them, and the only reason why there is confusion now and people calling themselves athiests who are really agnostic is due to certain individuals with agendas trying to coerce people into 'their' group.  You act on the assumption that there isn't, I act on what I conclude is right for each particular moment.

[Qistina]

How can they 'corrupt the teachings' when they were there first. Doesn't seem possible. Have they been writing appendices to the Koran ?

 

Well, it is like games, the developers make games, the fans modded them, then the games stop running and become corrupted. That's how. The Jews supposed to be the Chosen People, even Quran admit this, but the covenant taken away from them because they have been corrupted.

 

Isn't Jesus storm the temple in anger?  Who conspire to kill Jesus?

 

It is because Jesus is against the corrupted teachings of the conservative Jewish rabbais...isn't Jesus say "Those who have no sin cast the first stone"?, what does that mean? It is simply in other word there is no such thing in the real teaching.

 

There is no stoning in the Quran, and no stoning in the Gospel, so where stoning come from in Torah? You see that? That's the corruption...as we can see today some Muslims also practicing stoning in some countries even there is no such thing in the Quran.

 

You can make your own comparison, this is just one example

Edited January 5, 2016 by Qistina

[Guard Dog]

...everybody know about Jews and thier love of gold....

 

 

OMG! Here you go Cartman! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFD_WVKZ1dA

 

[Qistina]

 

 

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?

 

 

They are corrupted, they corrupt the teaching, corrupt the religion, that's why Jesus against them is it not?

 

Maybe there are things we can learn from Jews, only good things of course...but what are the good things about them anyway?

 

Well you could learn many things from the Jewish community....I would say the first thing should be how the Jews care about other Jews. They really care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, most of the Islamic world doesn't seem to care too much about other Muslims if its an inconvenience ....like the Syrian refugees and how the Sunni countries in the Middle East don't want to take in any refugees 

 

 

Is that a good thing? Isn't that RACISM?

 

Jew is a RACE, Islam is a religion, Muslims are from various of RACES...surely you don't want to play with this?

 

Syrian are Syrian, Arabs are Arabs, Turk are Turks, of course they are majority Muslims but they are all of different race. I am Malaysian, i am not Arab, not Syrian, i can say Arab problem is not my problem, Syrian problem is not my problem...but Malaysian problem is my problem

 

So if you want to put all Muslims into one shoe, and compare with Jews, then you are making unfair comparison and judgment

[Barothmuk]

Disbelief in one religion, does not mean I don't believe in another religion.

If you don't not believe in some other religion then you are not agnostic.

 

I think trying to claim groups like Buddhists are 'athiests too!!!' like many do is intellectually dishonest. Someone who does not believe in god because they believe only the material world exists is more different from a person who believes there isn't a god but there is reincarnation than someone who believes there is a god.

Depending on the sect some Buddhists do believe in a god or gods. Buddha himself was largely indifferent to the question of the existence of a god or gods and considered it irrelevant to his project. This is partially why Buddhism was so adaptable and was able to spread as well as it did.

 

Broadly speaking however its points such as this that highlight how limited the concept of "religion" is. It effectively communicates a general idea when speaking of the Abrahamic belief systems but when you apply it to the rest of the world it begins to get a lot more messy.

 

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It doesn't believe in or actively worship a god so its a philosophy. But it believes in superstitious things like karma and reincarnation so its a religion. But Socrates believed in and worshipped a god and he's considered a philosopher.

 

etc.

 

As an agnostic, I have decided that there isn't enough evidence to discount one side or the other, I will go by current scientific understanding.

However like I noted before, most religions will require you act in a specific way in accordance with the wishes of their god which you presumably do not. This means you are not in a state of neutrality on the existence of their god (whichever one it may be) but a state of actual disbelief, i.e. you act on the basis that the god does not exist.

 

Frankly I'm not attached to either label I just find the "atheists are too absolutist I'm an agnostic" mindset to be as equally obnoxious as euphoric atheism.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?

 

 

They are corrupted, they corrupt the teaching, corrupt the religion, that's why Jesus against them is it not?

 

Maybe there are things we can learn from Jews, only good things of course...but what are the good things about them anyway?

 

Well you could learn many things from the Jewish community....I would say the first thing should be how the Jews care about other Jews. They really care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, most of the Islamic world doesn't seem to care too much about other Muslims if its an inconvenience ....like the Syrian refugees and how the Sunni countries in the Middle East don't want to take in any refugees 

 

 

Is that a good thing? Isn't that RACISM?

 

Jew is a RACE, Islam is a religion, Muslims are from various of RACES...surely you don't want to play with this?

 

Syrian are Syrian, Arabs are Arabs, Turk are Turks, of course they are majority Muslims but they are all of different race. I am Malaysian, i am not Arab, not Syrian, i can say Arab problem is not my problem, Syrian problem is not my problem...but Malaysian problem is my problem

 

So if you want to put all Muslims into one shoe, and compare with Jews, then you are making unfair comparison and judgment

 

I don't mind discussing this, Syria/Saudi/UAE/Jordan and many other Middle East countries are part of the Arab League so there is suppose to be a connection despite what you saying

 

And the reality is these countries are all Muslim countries and despite this they don't care about the Syrians? 

[Qistina]

 

 

 

 

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?

 

 

They are corrupted, they corrupt the teaching, corrupt the religion, that's why Jesus against them is it not?

 

Maybe there are things we can learn from Jews, only good things of course...but what are the good things about them anyway?

 

Well you could learn many things from the Jewish community....I would say the first thing should be how the Jews care about other Jews. They really care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, most of the Islamic world doesn't seem to care too much about other Muslims if its an inconvenience ....like the Syrian refugees and how the Sunni countries in the Middle East don't want to take in any refugees 

 

 

Is that a good thing? Isn't that RACISM?

 

Jew is a RACE, Islam is a religion, Muslims are from various of RACES...surely you don't want to play with this?

 

Syrian are Syrian, Arabs are Arabs, Turk are Turks, of course they are majority Muslims but they are all of different race. I am Malaysian, i am not Arab, not Syrian, i can say Arab problem is not my problem, Syrian problem is not my problem...but Malaysian problem is my problem

 

So if you want to put all Muslims into one shoe, and compare with Jews, then you are making unfair comparison and judgment

 

I don't mind discussing this, Syria/Saudi/UAE/Jordan and many other Middle East countries are part of the Arab League so there is suppose to be a connection despite what you saying

 

And the reality is these countries are all Muslim countries and despite this they don't care about the Syrians? 

 

 

The same manner of Europeans don't care about other Europeans despite being Christian

 

Do Americans care about Europeans? Do Canadians care about Americans?

 

Same here

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Disbelief in one religion, does not mean I don't believe in another religion.

If you don't not believe in some other religion then you are not agnostic.

 

I think trying to claim groups like Buddhists are 'athiests too!!!' like many do is intellectually dishonest. Someone who does not believe in god because they believe only the material world exists is more different from a person who believes there isn't a god but there is reincarnation than someone who believes there is a god.

Depending on the sect some Buddhists do believe in a god or gods. Buddha himself was largely indifferent to the question of the existence of a god or gods and considered it irrelevant to his project. This is partially why Buddhism was so adaptable and was able to spread as well as it did.

 

Broadly speaking however its points such as this that highlight how limited the concept of "religion" is. It effectively communicates a general idea when speaking of the Abrahamic belief systems but when you apply it to the rest of the world it begins to get a lot more messy.

 

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It doesn't believe in or actively worship a god so its a philosophy. But it believes in superstitious things like karma and reincarnation so its a religion. But Socrates believed in and worshipped a god and he's considered a philosopher.

 

etc.

 

As an agnostic, I have decided that there isn't enough evidence to discount one side or the other, I will go by current scientific understanding.

However like I noted before, most religions will require you act in a specific way in accordance with the wishes of their god which you presumably do not. This means you are not in a state of neutrality on the existence of their god (whichever one it may be) but a state of actual disbelief, i.e. you act on the basis that the god does not exist.

 

Frankly I'm not attached to either label I just find the "atheists are too absolutist I'm an agnostic" mindset to be as equally obnoxious as euphoric atheism.

 

Frankly your premise is based on a false dichotomy.  "If you don't believe then you disbelieve."  Atheism is defined as someone who believes there is no god.  If you are an atheist you don't believe in a god.  Buddha was an agnostic: he didn't care one way or another.  It is always the atheists like Richard Dawkins who push the 'either/or' perspective because they realise the power of labels: once someone starts identifying themselves with a group that person then takes on the other beliefs of the group.  There is no confusion over Buddhism being a religion or not: it is a religion, certain atheists just play upon technicalities of the term to muddy the waters.  Buddhism requires belief in spiritual or magical effects, it has doctrines (which varies from group to group but so do the Christian doctrines vary between it's branches), etc.  It is the desire by certain groups to expand what atheism means to co-opt other groups to their 'side' that causes the confusion, atheism purely means someone who believes there is no god.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.^[13]

— Thomas Henry Huxley

[Barothmuk]

Frankly your premise is based on a false dichotomy. "If you don't believe then you disbelieve."

When it comes to a belief in a god or gods this is almost entirely the case.

 

I have already stated why.

 

There is no confusion over Buddhism being a religion or not: it is a religion, certain atheists just play upon technicalities of the term to muddy the waters. Buddhism requires belief in spiritual or magical effects, it has doctrines (which varies from group to group but so do the Christian doctrines vary between it's branches), etc. It is the desire by certain groups to expand what atheism means to co-opt other groups to their 'side' that causes the confusion, atheism purely means someone who believes there is no god.

I disagree.

 

Buddhism's status as a religion is not definitive and scepticism of this need not be because of attempts to "co-opt" it. Rather it is arguable Buddhism is not a religion because not only does it fail to meet the traditional definitions of a religion, but also the concept of religion itself was not meant to accommodate belief systems such as Buddhism. If you extend the definition of "religion" to ideologies with "spiritual" or "superstitious" elements then you'd have to include a lot of unintended belief systems as "religions".

 

For instance many liberal and humanist philosophies hold certain rights and morals to be innate or inherent; realistically speaking this is no different from superstitious belief.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Barothmuk

[FlintlockJazz]

While I don't go to Church every Sunday I do make special effort not to use a Church building as a urinal when I'm drunk, to not step upon graves, and when I am in a desperate situation I might beseech if there is a higher power to help me though prior testing indicates that if a higher power does exist it does not respond to verbal requests (or there is some other requirement needed for it to do so). 

 

I am willing to believe that there was a man called Jesus and that he spoke to some higher power that could be defined as a god though it may not take the form or capabilities that we think it does.  It could be the sum collective consciousness of humanity, it could be an super-intelligent AI that we will create in the future that has the capability to reach back in time to influence events to ensure it's creation. 

 

What is a god anyway?  Does it have to be all-powerful and omniscient?  Because the Greek gods definitely were not, Zeus was pretty much a horny bugger who could throw lightning bolts, and what of the Norse gods?  Loki tricks many of his fellow gods, and Odin got stuck on a tree and lost an eye.  If we can't define what we mean by a god then it's pointless to even discuss whether they exist or not since we don't know what we are talking about.

 

I will continue looking at the different religions and points of view, until I can decide whether there is a god or not. 

[BruceVC]

While I don't go to Church every Sunday I do make special effort not to use a Church building as a urinal when I'm drunk, to not step upon graves, and when I am in a desperate situation I might beseech if there is a higher power to help me though prior testing indicates that if a higher power does exist it does not respond to verbal requests (or there is some other requirement needed for it to do so). 

 

I am willing to believe that there was a man called Jesus and that he spoke to some higher power that could be defined as a god though it may not take the form or capabilities that we think it does.  It could be the sum collective consciousness of humanity, it could be an super-intelligent AI that we will create in the future that has the capability to reach back in time to influence events to ensure it's creation. 

 

What is a god anyway?  Does it have to be all-powerful and omniscient?  Because the Greek gods definitely were not, Zeus was pretty much a horny bugger who could throw lightning bolts, and what of the Norse gods?  Loki tricks many of his fellow gods, and Odin got stuck on a tree and lost an eye.  If we can't define what we mean by a god then it's pointless to even discuss whether they exist or not since we don't know what we are talking about.

 

I will continue looking at the different religions and points of view, until I can decide whether there is a god or not. 

What ...don't tell us now you also don't believe in the Greek gods? You are such an  " atheist cliche "  

[Chilloutman]

so at the end everyone come to conclusion that there is very little (if any) difference between religion and ideology(or phylosophy)? good

Edited January 5, 2016 by Chilloutman

[Maedhros]

 

I know plenty of atheists who are very spiritual. Buddhism, anyone?

 

I dislike how people try to attribute too much meaning to the term atheism - it simply means lack of/absence of belief in gods. It doesn't mean that you 100% rule it out, it just means that you don't have the belief that they exist.

 

It's not an ideology, it's not a religion, any more than "not believing mutant ninja turtles exist" is.

 

Wouldn't that be agnosticism, not atheism?

 

I don't necessarily agree with that. Agnosticism takes the position that we CAN'T know. So for me people who are agnostic can be both atheist or christian, depending on whether they have belief in deities or not. I have several christian friends who freely admit that they can't know 100% for sure whether god truly exists or not, but they still have the belief that he does.

 

But it seems like people just have really different definitions of it all.

 

For me: Atheist = Lack of belief in supernatural deities. Agnostic = Taking the position that humans can't know whether deities exist or not. By that definition, I'm, both. And then you have the "militant atheist" road, where atheism seems to be more agressive, in a "I know 100% sure that god does not exist, faith is irrational and you're dumb for believing in him" way.

 

I feel like it's always religious people, and "militant atheists" who try to attribute more meaning to "atheism". Some Christians tend to define atheism to be more extreme and ideological than it is, maybe as a direct result of people like Dawkins and the lot, who also tend to go on about atheism as if it's an ideology in opposition to (according to them) the stupidity of religion.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Thingolfin

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Frankly your premise is based on a false dichotomy. "If you don't believe then you disbelieve."

When it comes to a belief in a god or gods this is almost entirely the case.

 

I have already stated why.

 

 

 

You stated that if you don't believe in something then you disbelieve it, you have not provided anything conclusive to prove that you can only believe or disbelieve.

 

 

Buddhism's status as a religion is not definitive and scepticism of this need not be because of attempts to "co-opt" it. Rather it is arguable Buddhism is not a religion because not only does it fail to meet the traditional definitions of a religion, but also the concept of religion itself was not meant to accommodate belief systems such as Buddhism. If you extend the definition of "religion" to ideologies with "spiritual" or "superstitious" elements then you'd have to include a lot of unintended belief systems as "religions".

 

For instance many liberal and humanist philosophies hold certain rights and morals to be innate or inherent; realistically speaking this is no different from superstitious belief.

How does it fail to meet the traditional definitions of a religion?  Because it doesn't have a god?  "All religions must have a god because the definition I use to define religion is that they must have a god, therefore they must have a god..."  Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation, whereas philosophy is more theoretical, it makes observations of the world and people then tries to make meaning, they are not making superstitious or spiritual claims though they can be wrong as with any theory.  Buddhism has holy sites, temples, etc. 

 

If Buddhism is not a religion then what about Sikhism? 

[FlintlockJazz]

 

While I don't go to Church every Sunday I do make special effort not to use a Church building as a urinal when I'm drunk, to not step upon graves, and when I am in a desperate situation I might beseech if there is a higher power to help me though prior testing indicates that if a higher power does exist it does not respond to verbal requests (or there is some other requirement needed for it to do so). 

 

I am willing to believe that there was a man called Jesus and that he spoke to some higher power that could be defined as a god though it may not take the form or capabilities that we think it does.  It could be the sum collective consciousness of humanity, it could be an super-intelligent AI that we will create in the future that has the capability to reach back in time to influence events to ensure it's creation. 

 

What is a god anyway?  Does it have to be all-powerful and omniscient?  Because the Greek gods definitely were not, Zeus was pretty much a horny bugger who could throw lightning bolts, and what of the Norse gods?  Loki tricks many of his fellow gods, and Odin got stuck on a tree and lost an eye.  If we can't define what we mean by a god then it's pointless to even discuss whether they exist or not since we don't know what we are talking about.

 

I will continue looking at the different religions and points of view, until I can decide whether there is a god or not. 

What ...don't tell us now you also don't believe in the Greek gods? You are such an  " atheist cliche "  

 

I am open to their existence...   I am also open to the possibility that they were little gray aliens who also disguised themselves as the Norse Gods and were called the Asgardians.     Of course that then raises the question: does being aliens mean that the Greek gods were not gods or does it mean that aliens are gods?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Buddhism is different from philosophy because it assumes several things that are unprovable, including things such as reincarnation

 

I have a feeling you're not overly familiar with Buddhism 

[ShadySands]

If you separate the logic from the passions the religion inspires (both in belief or disbelief) agnostics are the only ones with a reasonable position. I can no more prove to an atheist God's existence than they can disprove. Which is more arrogant I wonder? 

 

Vegans, man

 

 

Edit - crap, now I really want a Dr Pepper

Edited January 5, 2016 by ShadySands

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

No the Jews aren't corrupted, they are just very good at survival and they generally very good business men ...especially in finance 

 

You could learn a lot from them?

 

 

They are corrupted, they corrupt the teaching, corrupt the religion, that's why Jesus against them is it not?

 

Maybe there are things we can learn from Jews, only good things of course...but what are the good things about them anyway?

 

Well you could learn many things from the Jewish community....I would say the first thing should be how the Jews care about other Jews. They really care about the sanctity of a single Jewish life, most of the Islamic world doesn't seem to care too much about other Muslims if its an inconvenience ....like the Syrian refugees and how the Sunni countries in the Middle East don't want to take in any refugees 

 

 

Is that a good thing? Isn't that RACISM?

 

Jew is a RACE, Islam is a religion, Muslims are from various of RACES...surely you don't want to play with this?

 

Syrian are Syrian, Arabs are Arabs, Turk are Turks, of course they are majority Muslims but they are all of different race. I am Malaysian, i am not Arab, not Syrian, i can say Arab problem is not my problem, Syrian problem is not my problem...but Malaysian problem is my problem

 

So if you want to put all Muslims into one shoe, and compare with Jews, then you are making unfair comparison and judgment

 

Point of clarification, when most people say Muslim they mean Middle Easterner.

So Muslim is used in the Western world as a race.

[Qistina]

Point of clarification, when most people say Muslim they mean Middle Easterner.

 

So Muslim is used in the Western world as a race.

 

 

So it is a racial issue all along then...

 

It is not about religion, but race

[Gorgon]

The words are 'Jewish' and 'Judaism'. The former does not do not denote a race, unless you count people living in the same county. I.e. 'The English race'

(bad example by the way) which is a bit archaic. You can't become black by marrying a black person, but you can become jewish by marrying a jewish person and converting. 

 

It's complicated and yet not at all. 

[BruceVC]

The words are 'Jewish' and 'Judaism'. The former do not do not denote a race, unless you count people living in the same county. I.e. 'The English race'

(bad example by the way) which is a bit archaic. You can't become black by marrying a black person, but you can become jewish by marrying a jewish person and converting. 

 

It's complicated and yet not at all. 

So smarty pants what happens if someone who use to be Jewish but renounced there religion marries a black person who is Jewish but lies in Mongolia ?