Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Questions Ignorant People Ask About God


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
316 replies to this topic

#271 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:02 PM

You seem not to grasp the fact that I just argued for increased empathy on the part of those on both sides of the debate. -_-

Your assertion that tolerance is a property of non believers while not of believers is certainly an oversimplification that is moreover demonstrably false. I find it hard to believe that you haven't encountered Christians or those of other religons who tolerate your atheism. Myself, politically and socially I have a lot in common with the beliefs of someone like Timothy Keller who I mentioned before.

In the history of the world, the nations that became officially governed under an atheistic system, in particular the Soviet Union, Communist China, some Eastern Block Communist States, and North Korea, are among the most intolerant nations to those of apposing views in history. It is the West, in countries predominantly Christian, that over time developed the systems of human rights and human justice that you support.


This is not a good argument at all. The atheistic countries are intolerant nations simply due to political means, their religion does not influence their political motives.

As for the west, that is true that religion exists but religion was not the one that developed human justice and rights. The evolution of the political laws of the west is not controlled by religion during the large social revolutions. The dark ages is the time when religion played a major role in shaping the political system. That didn't get us very far now did it?
Posted ImagePosted Image

#272 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:04 PM

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Religion is a tool used by the puppet masters to control the sheep, but there are others. Removing religion does not completely clean up the mess.


Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but for a good person to do bad things, that requires religion.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#273 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,529 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:50 PM

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Religion is a tool used by the puppet masters to control the sheep, but there are others. Removing religion does not completely clean up the mess.


did i say it would , human beings will always find ways to srcew things up it is one of the things we are fundamentally good at , snatching defeat from the jaws of victory .

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#274 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:25 PM

Posted Image


Definitely. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, etc. Some of the greatest scientific minds of all time.

Unfortunately and through no fault of their own, some of these men had great difficulties reconciling their religious beliefs based on what they had discovered.

For example, Copernicus didnt publish De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until after his death. In those days the Church would get medieval on your ass for suggesting the Universe was heliocentric.

Kepler was probably the best example. In those days youd have to be crazy to suggest the heavens were not completely perfect. He would spend years trying to find a way to prove the heavens were in fact perfect, instead of working with what he observed.

So yes, Christians can be great scientists obviously, but their religious beliefs can be a hindrance for sure.

#275 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,529 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:46 PM

This is not a good argument at all. The atheistic countries are intolerant nations simply due to political means, their religion does not influence their political motives.

As for the west, that is true that religion exists but religion was not the one that developed human justice and rights. The evolution of the political laws of the west is not controlled by religion during the large social revolutions. The dark ages is the time when religion played a major role in shaping the political system. That didn't get us very far now did it?

right on , i did not want to go too far back in history , but all through history religion has caused a lot of pain and anguish , and as far as western society is concerned it is since we have seperated church and state that we have become better at treating each other the way we want to be treated ourselves , but we still have a long way to go in this regard .

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#276 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:51 PM

Fixed that for you. There's nothing scientific about Abrahamic religions. Now, Scientology, that's science fiction.

And there's little truth, if any, in fiction.. that's why it's fiction. It's not to be taken seriously.


Jules Verne?
Maybe you should read more and post less.

http://en.wikipedia....science_fiction

And many other things today because of Science Fiction writers in the past.

Oh, speaking of reading, my quote was from "Planet of the Apes" - not from any religion as you say.

Please read.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#277 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:54 PM

well keep on hating me mate because whether you want to admit it or not religious beliefs contribute greatly to the mess we are in.


I don't hate you - I hate the message.

As far as your statement, yes, religion has helped contribute - but not as much as non religion.

http://www.godandsci...atrocities.html

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#278 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:01 PM

right on , i did not want to go too far back in history , but all through history religion has caused a lot of pain and anguish , and as far as western society is concerned it is since we have seperated church and state that we have become better at treating each other the way we want to be treated ourselves , but we still have a long way to go in this regard .


Really? Look at the way some people in this thread, the God thread, and in other non religious based threads.
We're not treating people any better at all.
When did you go to say junior high?

It's appalling how kids are treating each other today.

Yes, there also were issues - but no where near what happens today.

For example, one of my daughters, in her circle of friends, from grade 9-12, had 3 people die - one by suicide.
Some of her friends also knew the boy who got his head split open by an axe at a party - why? Because someone didn't like him.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#279 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:40 PM

I don't hate you - I hate the message.

As far as your statement, yes, religion has helped contribute - but not as much as non religion.

http://www.godandsci...atrocities.html


LOL that whole webpage screams insecurity.

#280 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,174 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:05 PM

Lol no, that was in jest. I'm a prick, I can be rude and unapologetic. At the same time, I do not oppose your faith. I simply don't respect it. So no, it's not animosity, otherwise half this forum can join your club. :lol:

I liked when Keller commits the fallacy of appealing to populism - "...have written many things that are easy to refute. As a matter of fact, almost none of these atheist books has gotten a favorable review, say in the New Republic, or the London Review of Books, or the New York Review of Books. Most scholars see the weakness of the arguments." Not to mention how he misconstrues their side - "to even be congenial and respectful to a religious believers is bad" - certainly Dawkins treats his debate opponents with respect. Although I've never read any books written by the so called "new atheists", so I can't speak in full, but I don't recall them say anything of the sort. I'm interested to hear more... Especially about all the "scholars" who see the weakness of evolutionary biology, for example.

Can you tell me why "atheistic philosophy" is wrong? Can you tell me what it is? I doubt you have an argument I couldn't poop a refutation to. That's not being antagonistic, that's making me laugh. Just thought I'd clear that up for ya.

Can you elaborate on the vagueness of "post modern idea of plurality of truths"? Sounds interesting and deep, I'd like to learn more. What is post-modern philosophy? How does colonialism tie into this? And Nietzsche? Me feel stoopid. :(

I don't think religion is for idiots, I think it's a crutch. I've known (and still do!) smart religious people. I've expanded in depth on my stance that faith is the irrational factor in religion, common across all religions. No need to misrepresent me, I'm right here!

Yes, I do want clarification. I've not read 1984, so you'll have to indulge me.

How are you playing to win? You're a representative of a religion, the one true faith, the only way to heaven. Are you not here to be god's slave servant and increase his flock? From where I sit, you're trying to win by any means possible. Sorry, not familiar with your political views. I'm just familiar with your extensive list of Christian apologists. :lol:


Critical reception

The book provoked an immediate response, both positive and negative, and was published with endorsements from scientists, such as Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA James D. Watson, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, as well as popular writers of fiction and the illusionists Penn and Teller.[26] Nevertheless, the book received mixed reviews from critics: Metacritic reported the book had an average score of 59 out of 100,[27] while London Review of Books criticized Richard Dawkins for not doing a proper research into the topic of his work, religion, and setting up a straw man to make his arguments against theism valid.[28] The book was nominated for Best Book at the British Book Awards, where Richard Dawkins was named Author of the Year.[29] The God Delusion provoked responses from both religious and atheist commentators.[30][31]
Oxford theologian Alister McGrath (author of The Dawkins Delusion? and Dawkins' God) maintains that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology, and therefore unable to engage religion and faith intelligently.[32] In reply, Dawkins asks "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving inleprechauns?",[33] and—in the paperback edition of The God Delusion—he refers to the American biologist PZ Myers, who has satirised this line of argument as "The Courtier's Reply".[34] Dawkins had an extended debate with McGrath at the 2007 Sunday Times Literary Festival.[35]
Christian philosopher Keith Ward, in his 2006 book Is Religion Dangerous?, argues against the view of Dawkins and others that religion is socially dangerous. The ethicist Margaret Somerville,[36] suggested that Dawkins "overstates the case against religion",[37] particularly its role in human conflict. Many of Dawkins' defenders claim that critics generally misunderstand his real point. During a debate on Radio 3 Hong Kong, David Nicholls, writer and president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, reiterated Dawkins' sentiments that religion is an "unnecessary" aspect of global problems.[38]
Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other".[39] He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould's principle of nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA). In an interview with TIME magazine, Dawkins said:


I think that Gould's separate compartments was a purely political ploy to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp. But it's a very empty idea. There are plenty of places where religion does not keep off the scientific turf. Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science.[40]

Astrophysicist Martin Rees has suggested that Dawkins' attack on mainstream religion is unhelpful.[41] Regarding Rees' claim in his book Our Cosmic Habitat that "such questions lie beyond science", Dawkins asks "what expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"[42][43] Elsewhere, Dawkins has written that "there's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic, and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority or revelation."[44]

:unsure:
[edit]


Yeah, it seems you are quite happy to bully others into silence or anger with ridicule, contempt, sarcasm etc. But as soon as someone calls you out for your horrendous debating technique it's all just a big joke. Sure, it's easy to be an internet tough guy. But it isn't going to win you many fans from the other side of the debate...I guess as you've stated many times that you are against influencing anyone's opinion this doesn't concern you. :bored:

I suggest reading 1984. It's considered by most to be one of the most important fiction books of the 20th century. From the perspective of 1948 It's set in a dystopian future where society is relegated into 3 distinct casts: the Inner Party, the Outer Party, and the Proletariet or "Proles". These three castes have almost zero interaction with each other: the Proles are considered mentally inferior and are left alone to practice their "primitive" traditions. This is the only thing I refer to from the book. Your idea that nobody should influence each other would result in a completely divided society. I don't know how you can think this is a good idea.

I have faith in that I believe in something I can't prove. This doesn't necessarily make my belief irrational. As I've said before, you can't prove a lot of things that are rational to believe.

I mentioned colonialism because it and related ideas like Imperialism are basically the practical side of the polar opposite of pluralism. I'm talking on a societal level in this regard. To simplify in one sentence, Modernism/rationalism sort of peaked in the late 19th century with the Western belief that they were the civilized people and needed to civilize the rest of the planet, to the degree of thinking Western foods, language, clothing, and religion should be implemented in the rest of the world. In Canada for example this kind of thinking resulted in the Catholic native residential schools, where native children were taken away from their parents in an attempt to assimilate them into Canadian culture. The effects of the schools weren't entirely bad, but a lot more harm was done than good.

An overenthusiastic brand of modernism certainly had a lot to do with the mass carnage of the early 20th century. People of all sides enthusiastically marched off to World War I thinking they were fighting for a just cause. Christians and Christian organizations certainly had their part in this stupidity.

This stupidity is basically what the post modernist thinkers were responding to.

http://en.wikipedia..../Post_modernism
http://en.wikipedia....dern_philosophy

Postmodernism describes a range of conceptual frameworks and ideologies that are defined in opposition to those commonly associated with ideologies of modernity and modernist notions of knowledge and science, such as, materialism, realism, positivism, formalism, structuralism, dogmatism and reductionism. Postmodernist approaches are critical of the possibility of objective knowledge of the real world, and consider the ways in which social dynamics such as power and hierarchy affect human conceptualizations of the world to have important effects on the way knowledge is constructed and used. In contrast to the modernist paradigm, postmodernist thought often emphasize idealism, constructivism, relativism, pluralism and scepticism in its approaches to knowledge and understanding.


As I said before: I don't support either philosophy. Christianity as I understand is quite opposed to a belief in superiority or forced conversions; and it is also against the idea that there is not a real truth to be discovered.

This is an article discussing the God Delusion by William Lane Craig:


"What do you think of Richard Dawkins' argument for atheism in The God Delusion?"

Dr. Craig responds:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.
Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.
A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified.
What does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation. Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.
So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. Take just step (3), for example. Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: who designed the designer?
This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.
Secondly, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth. But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.
Other steps in Dawkins' argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.


http://rf.convio.net...Article&id=5493

Edited by Coda, 26 April 2012 - 08:53 PM.


#281 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,174 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:42 PM

This is not a good argument at all. The atheistic countries are intolerant nations simply due to political means, their religion does not influence their political motives.

As for the west, that is true that religion exists but religion was not the one that developed human justice and rights. The evolution of the political laws of the west is not controlled by religion during the large social revolutions. The dark ages is the time when religion played a major role in shaping the political system. That didn't get us very far now did it?


I think it's quite unfair to blame violence in religious countries on their religion while giving atheists free reign. If you excuse the influence of the atheist's world view on their actions and blame them on politics, why not do the same for religious people.

I think you're quite wrong about religion in Europe, at least Christianity. Yes, religion played a big part in the middle ages, but you couldn't say it was a bible-based religion. Almost no one besides a few scribes and priests read the bible before the Reformation and Counter reformation of the 16th century and the invention of the printing press. Catholic Masses were given in Latin not the vernacular. The majority of people had no idea what Christianity was about. A lot of priests were very corrupt and got rich by telling people they had to pay money to get to heaven out of "purgatory". Really, Christianity of the Middle Ages was a strange mixture of Biblical teaching and pagan spirituality and supersitition.

Its funny to read Beowulf and examine how the different cultures were mixing at the time.

The Bible is undoubtedly the single biggest influence on Western morality and ethics since the reformation. I posted this before, but I will again:

Good things pioneered by the Church and committed Christians in modern society:
• The Church is the largest single provider of healthcare in the world
• also the largest single provider of education in the world
• Church fathers successfully campaigned against infanticide in society
• and stood up for the rights of women by codifying marriage as a sacrament
• The first orphanages were churches
• Barnardos is the world's largest orphanage system
• Churches pioneered the first homes for the elderly
• and the first homes for the disabled in society
• Leading society to abolish the slave trade (Wilberforce and the church)
• Pioneers of modern social workers (Jane Adams)
• Fathers of modern Foster Care (Charles L. Brace)
• The Mothers Union - strengthening family life. Founded in 1876
• Free health care for the terminally ill (Douglas Macmillan)
• Pioneers of modern nursing (F.Nightingale)
• Almost all schools were church founded before the state took over
• 100 out of 110 US universities were church founded (inc. Yale, Princeton and Harvard)
• Pioneers of free schooling for poor young people (John Pounds)
• School for children in slums (R.Raikes)
• World Literacy pioneers (SIL and Frank Lauback)
• Pioneers of education for the deaf (Rev. Gallaudet)
• Braille system for the blind developed by Louis Braille.
• First laws to protect children from abuse (Soc. PCC - Rev B Waugh)
• Fighting for the rights of children working in factories (Richard Oastler)
• as well as campaigning for Poor Law reform
• Josephine Butler campaigned for the age of consent to be set to 16 so children could not be abused.
• YMCA - caring for young people in society
• Salvation Army - pioneering radical care for the poor and disadvantaged in society
• Education for orphans (George Mueller)
• Campaigning for prison reform (Quakers)
• Temperance Movement to address alcohol abuse in society
• Alcoholics (and Narcotics) Anonymous (Dr. B.Smith)
• Leading society to adopt "fair trade" (Tearfund)
• Pioneers of Microfinance for poor countries (D.Bussau)
• Pioneers of international child sponsorship (World Vision, Dr. R. Price)
• Save The Children, huge worldwide mission (Eglantyne Jebb)
• Fathers of modern famine relief (Oxfam Quakers)
• International Housing for the poor - Habitat for Humanity (Millard Fuller)
• Justice for people worldwide who are oppressed (Amnesty International - P.Beneson, E.Baker)
• Leprosy Mission - caring for those no-one else wants (Dr. P.Wilson)
• King James Bible - profound impact on the English language and culture

This is a partial list. For more examples and further reading visit:
http://christiangood...ty.blogspot.com


The bible has been used to justify bad things too...but I think the good certainly outweighs the bad.

#282 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,174 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:49 PM

i did not assert that tolerance is the property of non believers i said that that people like myself who have no specific beliefs are far more tolerant of other people's beliefs than people who have a strong faith in their beliefs .your use of the word enemy several times in your posts speaks volumes on how you feel about others who do not share your views and/or beliefs . i do not consider any one my enemy , there are things i hate like poverty , racism ,greed and our species inability to get it's collective act together ,and part of the reason for that is religion which in it's worst manifestations is very divisive and controlling. but i do not hate any one particular person , life has taught me not to judge others , in most cases i do not know the series of events that have led to any given person turning out the way they have , i have not walked in their shoes .
and i did not say i was an atheist , i have stated in previous posts that i do not know what to believe , and any one who claims they know for certain that god exists or does not exist is deluding themselves , this is something that we will only find out when we die .
i heard the other day that the archbishop of Seattle was put in charge of a group of "radical nuns " by the holy see . these nuns were putting forward such extremist l ideas like contraception , gay marriage and the ordination of women . and i can go on and on and on and on .
man i would like to meet a radical nun .


I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying very well. I said that in a certain sense Scorpio Ego was my enemy...which is very true given the definition of the word enemy. My major point is that we should not treat other people like enemies.

#283 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,174 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:50 PM

double post

Edited by Coda, 26 April 2012 - 08:54 PM.


#284 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,529 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:39 AM

Really? Look at the way some people in this thread, the God thread, and in other non religious based threads.
We're not treating people any better at all.
When did you go to say junior high?

It's appalling how kids are treating each other today.

Yes, there also were issues - but no where near what happens today.

For example, one of my daughters, in her circle of friends, from grade 9-12, had 3 people die - one by suicide.
Some of her friends also knew the boy who got his head split open by an axe at a party - why? Because someone didn't like him.


well observing my society lets go back to the 50 's which in another thread you suggested were a much better time , australia had a stated policy called "white australia" which the government insituted because we did not want to be" over'run by asians . women were struggling to find jobs and when they did experienced predjudice [my mother} in the workplace and in general were not considered the "equal" of men . there was the stolen generation both black and white , and i was a victim of this , between 1958 and 1972 nearly 50,000 white , unwed teenage mothers had their babies taken from them by the catholic church , in a lot of cases these girls were drugged for months on end until they signed the adoption papers .homosexuality was illegal and you could be jailed for it ,rascism was rampant and the indigenous members of our society suffered greatly because of this . while some of thes things still exist we are light years ahead of how we used to treat each other .
high school was over 30 years ago for me , i first witnessed death first hand at 14 when a kid i grew up with died on the football field due to the actions of another kid whose only intent was to injure , i lost the ability to have children at 17 , again on the football field due to the actions of a kid who was trying to hurt me , by the age of 20 i had lost 4 friends to suicide and had attempted it myself , even though i do not have kids many of my friends do and they have opportunities i could only dream of , though education is becoming very expensive and even in that regard some one like me would now be diagnosed correctly and put in an accelerated learning enviroment not thrown in with all the rest of the troublemakers because of my hyperactivity .
these are my personal experiences so in my opinion things are a lot better today than they were back then

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#285 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,529 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:47 AM

I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying very well. I said that in a certain sense Scorpio Ego was my enemy...which is very true given the definition of the word enemy. My major point is that we should not treat other people like enemies.

and my point is we should not consider anyone to be our enemy in any sense , as scorpio's quote says love your enemies , but if you love some one how can they be your enemy , and is not jesus a source of inspiration to members of your religion .

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#286 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:55 AM

well observing my society lets go back to the 50 's which in another thread you suggested were a much better time , australia had a stated policy called "white australia" which the government insituted because we did not want to be" over'run by asians . women were struggling to find jobs and when they did experienced predjudice [my mother} in the workplace and in general were not considered the "equal" of men . there was the stolen generation both black and white , and i was a victim of this , between 1958 and 1972 nearly 50,000 white , unwed teenage mothers had their babies taken from them by the catholic church , in a lot of cases these girls were drugged for months on end until they signed the adoption papers .homosexuality was illegal and you could be jailed for it ,rascism was rampant and the indigenous members of our society suffered greatly because of this . while some of thes things still exist we are light years ahead of how we used to treat each other .
high school was over 30 years ago for me , i first witnessed death first hand at 14 when a kid i grew up with died on the football field due to the actions of another kid whose only intent was to injure , i lost the ability to have children at 17 , again on the football field due to the actions of a kid who was trying to hurt me , by the age of 20 i had lost 4 friends to suicide and had attempted it myself , even though i do not have kids many of my friends do and they have opportunities i could only dream of , though education is becoming very expensive and even in that regard some one like me would now be diagnosed correctly and put in an accelerated learning enviroment not thrown in with all the rest of the troublemakers because of my hyperactivity .
these are my personal experiences so in my opinion things are a lot better today than they were back then


Sorry to hear what happened to you but thanks for sharing that.

So is it really better today (as far as how people treat each other) then 30 years ago?
Is it worse?

Maybe it's the same.

I see unwed mothers at 16, I see people getting beat up for either their race, sexuality, beliefs.
Bullying is still going on. Physical and sexual abuse.

In my opinion, we aren't any better. Which is sad considering all we have learned - yet we can't seem to learn from our mistakes...

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#287 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:33 AM

I think it's quite unfair to blame violence in religious countries on their religion while giving atheists free reign. If you excuse the influence of the atheist's world view on their actions and blame them on politics, why not do the same for religious people.

I think you're quite wrong about religion in Europe, at least Christianity. Yes, religion played a big part in the middle ages, but you couldn't say it was a bible-based religion. Almost no one besides a few scribes and priests read the bible before the Reformation and Counter reformation of the 16th century and the invention of the printing press. Catholic Masses were given in Latin not the vernacular. The majority of people had no idea what Christianity was about. A lot of priests were very corrupt and got rich by telling people they had to pay money to get to heaven out of "purgatory". Really, Christianity of the Middle Ages was a strange mixture of Biblical teaching and pagan spirituality and supersitition.

Its funny to read Beowulf and examine how the different cultures were mixing at the time.

The Bible is undoubtedly the single biggest influence on Western morality and ethics since the reformation. I posted this before, but I will again:



The bible has been used to justify bad things too...but I think the good certainly outweighs the bad.


Because religion is based on faith. And faith is by definition an irrational stand. When religion gets into politics, it simply does not have the same effect as when non-religious gets into the political system. Power is given to people by "god" in a religious political system and this type of thinking allows for a loop that society has trouble breaking.

Yes, it was the priests that were suppose to be the people of "God". Clearly god doesn't care that people are corrupt in his name.
Regardless of the state of Christianity of the time, it was still a religion. Look at the middle east right now. it's in a huge mess.

Yeah, it is the biggest influence. Look at the USA. It's stopping stem cell research, people are still arguing over a women's right to choose, and some parents refuse medical care for their children because it's "against their religion". Completely irrational.

Edited by Thanos, 27 April 2012 - 09:33 AM.

Posted ImagePosted Image

#288 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:19 AM

Because religion is based on faith. And faith is by definition an irrational stand.


Huh? Maybe your definition....

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/faith

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#289 Super19

Super19

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 10

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

I believe the original poster was trying to make the point that to make an unfalsifiable claim and then ask for people to prove it wrong is ludicrous. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. My point with my post was that just because the claim goes against one or more religions, it's certainly not falsified by any stretch of the imagination.

Yup.

I think you probably do dismiss other religions aside from Islam for the same or similar reasons that I dismiss those religions plus Islam. Just curious, but why do you dismiss other religions that claim a complete oneness of god like Sikhism and Baha'i?

Muslims have a definitive concept of Tawhid or "the Oneness of God".The SIkhs holy book was written by Sikh Guru + other devotees who claimed to have attained salvation. The Qur'an claims to be the verbatim word of God - not authored by man.

Christians also believe in the Oneness of God but some believe in the Trinity which I to be honest, cannot comprehend.
Even the Hindus in their Sanskrits have their own concept of monotheism.

So many religions have had concepts of One God but I think Islam is best + looking at the history of other religions one should be able prove that they have been tampered with or that they aren't really divine. This is not to discredit that they have taught good because they have. Also many of these religions share the ideas, I just think Islam is the perfect and complete one.

I really don't want to cause offense to other peoples beliefs with this reply to your question.
Posted Image

#290 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 09

Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:06 PM

I would have thought in 2012 people wouldn't be dumb enough to still be talking about god.

#291 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 27 April 2012 - 12:13 PM

Huh? Maybe your definition....

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/faith


"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Is that not by definition irrational?
Posted ImagePosted Image

#292 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,268 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:16 PM

Yup.

Muslims have a definitive concept of Tawhid or "the Oneness of God".The SIkhs holy book was written by Sikh Guru + other devotees who claimed to have attained salvation. The Qur'an claims to be the verbatim word of God - not authored by man.

Christians also believe in the Oneness of God but some believe in the Trinity which I to be honest, cannot comprehend.
Even the Hindus in their Sanskrits have their own concept of monotheism.

So many religions have had concepts of One God but I think Islam is best + looking at the history of other religions one should be able prove that they have been tampered with or that they aren't really divine. This is not to discredit that they have taught good because they have. Also many of these religions share the ideas, I just think Islam is the perfect and complete one.

I really don't want to cause offense to other peoples beliefs with this reply to your question.

Even if you take Muhammad's word that the ayat are the verbatim word of Allah, the Quran was still pieced together by men after his death. When you've got such a huge book compiled from the memories and written fragments of many different people, mistakes can easily creep in, so you can't say that it is the direct word of God, even if its writing is a lot less prone to alteration than that of the Bible or Talmud. Personally, I don't see any difference at all in believability between a book authored by men claiming to have attained salvation and a book of the revelations of a man claiming to be a prophet, but obviously you see differently

Thanks for answering my question.

Edited by VICanucksfan5551, 27 April 2012 - 01:23 PM.

Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#293 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Is that not by definition irrational?


Nope. But you calling faith irrational can be.


ir·ra·tion·al
   [ih-rash-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
5.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.
b.
(of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#294 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:45 PM

I would have thought in 2012 people wouldn't be dumb enough to still be talking about god.


Thanks for proving the OP.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#295 Onions

Onions

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 11

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

Nope. But you calling faith irrational can be.


ir·ra·tion·al
   [ih-rash-uh-nl] reason; deprived of reason.
2.
without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3.
not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4.
not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
5.
Mathematics .
a.
(of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.
b.
(of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.


okay then.....
glad we agree.

Edited by Thanos, 27 April 2012 - 01:52 PM.

Posted ImagePosted Image

#296 Lockhart

Lockhart

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 09

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:10 PM

Thanks for proving the OP.


Since when is the truth ignorant?

#297 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,529 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:37 PM

Sorry to hear what happened to you but thanks for sharing that.

So is it really better today (as far as how people treat each other) then 30 years ago?
Is it worse?

Maybe it's the same.

I see unwed mothers at 16, I see people getting beat up for either their race, sexuality, beliefs.
Bullying is still going on. Physical and sexual abuse.

In my opinion, we aren't any better. Which is sad considering all we have learned - yet we can't seem to learn from our mistakes...

maybe we do not learn from our mistakes because a lot of people do not even think and/or want to admit that we/they have made mistakes , it is hard to admit to oneself and others you have screwed up , but it is the only way i know to start the process of trying not to make the same mistake again .
i have quoted him before and i will do it again
when we look at modern man we have to face the fact that modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit , which stands in glaring contrast with a scientific and technological abundance.we've learned to fly the air as birds,we've learned to swim the seasas fish, yet we have'nt learned to walk the earth as brothers and sisters . martin luther king
for the roughly 2000 years christianity has been going it has not managed to encourage us to be able to do what should be the simplest thing of all treat each other the way we want to be treated ourselves .

Edited by puckinloveicehockey, 27 April 2012 - 04:44 PM.

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#298 Super19

Super19

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 10

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:38 PM

Even if you take Muhammad's word that the ayat are the verbatim word of Allah, the Quran was still pieced together by men after his death. When you've got such a huge book compiled from the memories and written fragments of many different people, mistakes can easily creep in, so you can't say that it is the direct word of God, even if its writing is a lot less prone to alteration than that of the Bible or Talmud. Personally, I don't see any difference at all in believability between a book authored by men claiming to have attained salvation and a book of the revelations of a man claiming to be a prophet, but obviously you see differently

Thanks for answering my question.

Not only is the Qur'an a lot less prone to alteration than that of the Bible or Talmud, it is indeed a scholarly fact that the Qur'an remains unchanged. This is also consistent with my notes of the first-year religions class I took - the Qur'an has been preserved. There are very weak stabs at refuting the preservation of the Qur'an with the "Uthman's Quran" arguments but they in all honestly hold no merit.

I know I see different. :D

And thanks man it was a great question. I know I didn't do it justice.
Posted Image

#299 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:42 PM

Since when is the truth ignorant?


Thanks for proving the OP.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#300 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,535 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:42 PM

maybe we do not learn from our mistakes because a lot of people do not even think and/or want to admit that we/they have made mistakes , it is hard to admit to oneself and others you have screwed up , but it is the only way i know to start the process of trying not to make the same mistake again .
i have quoted him before and i will do it again
when we look at modern man we have to face the fact that modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit , which stands in glaring contrast with a scientific and technological abundance.we've learned to fly the air as birds,we've learned to swim the seasas fish, yet we have'nt learned to walk the earth as brothers and sisters . martin luther king
for the roughly 2000 years christianity has been going it has not managed to encourage us to be able to do the what should be the simplest thing of all treat each other the way we want to be treated ourselves .


Well said indeed.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.