Religious Poll

[ryanglavin]

Hey friends,
I was just wondering, have we ever had a religious Poll on here?
And please don't start a flame war, its just a simple question :cool:

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't think I've ever seen one on GT. Personally, I think the two worst things that you could possibly discuss on the internet are religion and politics, but a lot of people seem to like talking about the latter. I'm sure you would get a number of responses for the former.

[nikimcbee]

God bless Joe Pesci
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo&feature=related

[TarJak]

IIRC there was one a few years ago. And I'd say that the GT formum has had a reasonable run of religious as well as political discussions in its time.

[Castout]

God bless Joe Pesci
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo&feature=related

He's right something is wrong something is ****ed up but he assumed that all those are God's fault. He assumed that God is the perpetrator of everything! Which God is not!

how come he that doesn't know ANYTHING about God could assume that God is the perpetrator of everything.

Do you know why Jesus taught Thy kingdom come . . . .Thy will BE done on earth as in heaven WHICH MEANS it doesn't always happen that way still on earth.

Not Thy kingdom preserved . . . . .

NOT the TIME YET. Sins is the root of this ****ed up world. Misery breeds misery. Anger breeds anger. Torture breeds torture.

Don't hate me over me commenting this. God is not responsible for much of our misery.

My life is in ruins my future is bleak my health is not good but I still can tell anyone I haven't seen anyone and anything greater than my God. Sure I'm upset why I couldn't be like everyone else and why would despotic people get attracted to me but like I said I haven't seen anything nor anyone greater than my God. Heck for all the enemies throw at me I could have a nation or two to befriend me had I wanted it(or a few others to kill me :P). Nothing is like God. Most of all God is always personal you must find God yourself no one can help you to it. More like until God decides that you must find Him.
My life in one word is PAIN. In fact I rather hate my life but what can I do I'm forever convicted with knowing God no matter how little or far in between.

[Skybird]

@ Castout

http://nikkeefe.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/religion.jpg
========

Is this thread really necessary? This forum is no missionising board or a board over confessions on personal fantasies one holds. Where there is no religious propaganda pushed into the public space, there no anti-religious people must feel provoked by being missionised and must not push their antireligious stuff into public as well - like Castout and me just have demonstrated: the one guy starts to preach, the other sends back a shot in reply. Peace is maintained, and everybody is still free to think what he wants in private, with the public space not needing to bother for either the one or the other. And that's how it should be in a secular society, with any kind of relgion there is and atheism as well. Keep your oh so precious convictions pro of contra to yourselves, where they belong. They belong nowhere else than to the inside of your mind. Nature, the world, the cosmos give nothing for them, and many people live here that do not want to need giving time and awareness for them either.

Play your radio at volume levels where you do not bother your neighbours.

I would simply lock this and similiar threads.

[Castout]

@skybird I wasn't referring to picking up a religion.

What little I know about God is that

God is kind enough to actually love the people who don't know Him at all and powerful enough to literally change our heart. Generous enough to give without being asked, loving enough to give what was asked even when it was really ridiculous, still enough not to give everything that we asked, and strict enough to know that He is GOD such that we are reminded that we're never be on equal terms with God,

God I know is NOT MEEK. Never was, never is and never will be.

[Herr-Berbunch]

According to Ninian Smart's respected definition of a religion, even football (either proper football or 'handegg' :O:) is a religion... including the wars!:yep:

[Tribesman]

This forum is no missionising board or a board over confessions on personal fantasies one holds.
Says a man on a mission:har::har::har::har::har:

[antikristuseke]

This about covers my opinion on any and all religions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY

[Skybird]

@skybird I wasn't referring to picking up a religion.

What little I know about God is that

God is kind enough to actually love the people who don't know Him at all and powerful enough to literally change our heart. Generous enough to give without being asked, loving enough to give what was asked even when it was really ridiculous, still enough not to give everything that we asked, and strict enough to know that He is GOD such that we are reminded that we're never be on equal terms with God,

God I know is NOT MEEK. Never was, never is and never will be.
Fine. Must we be interested in your precious little sermon? Don't think so. Keep your fantasies where they belong - inside your head.

[jumpy]

hehe funny links.

I always figured that god knew adam and eve were flawed beings (as he made them) and that they would not be able to resist temptation, so in their naivety, the test he set them to endure was beyond their nature to resist.
Doesn't seem like a fair thing to me; what's so loving and forgiving about a setting someone up for certain failure? For what?

That's pretty much the first thing I recall thinking about bible stories as a youngster.
That, and later on, comparative reading of classical greek literature reinforced my understanding of religion to be of earthly origin - essentially there's some very human qualities associated with god/gods, not because we are created in their image, but because man invented religion and peopled it with deities derived from what he knew about the world around him. The greek gods are good examples of this - a certain honesty to them that betrays their origins; capricious, constantly fighting amongst each other, *******, drinking and generally making life better or worse as they saw fit, for those mere mortals who dared to be noticed.

The practising of one's religion ought to be a private business, not some public organisation with a reputation for fallacy, trampling about the world getting up other peoples noses with its own hubris, as is often the case.
But that's only what I think.

[NeonSamurai]

Lets step away from the sermonizing please.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Peace is maintained, and everybody is still free to think what he wants in private, with the public space not needing to bother for either the one or the other. And that's how it should be in a secular society, with any kind of relgion there is and atheism as well. Keep your oh so precious convictions pro of contra to yourselves, where they belong. They belong nowhere else than to the inside of your mind. Nature, the world, the cosmos give nothing for them, and many people live here that do not want to need giving time and awareness for them either.

The same could be said of many other subjects where people hold "convictions" and we talk about them. Besides, this is a forum where people are free to hold discussions within the established guidelines, including subjects that I'm sure you'd be happy to see absolutely no "time and awareness" devoted to.;)

In all fairness, you bring up Islam and why it is evil on a pretty regular basis, so you discuss religion too. What if we had a Muslim here who disagreed with your views for religious reasons, or idealogical reasons, or political reasons? Should such a discussion then be forfeit, simply because it involves religion? Should we all be happy then to let the both of you keep your opinions to yourselves?

Religion, including atheism, is a broad subject with far-reaching implications in the secular world. It affects the behaviour of people, the values they hold, and the societies they live in, and is in turn affected by the same. Banning discussion of it is no different from banning discussion of any other institution. Ergo, I feel anyone who wants to should be able to express their opinions on religion, especially in the course of making a point or describing a position they hold.

There can still be peace, so long as people play by the rules they're always supposed to be playing by and demonstrate respect for others.

edit-
Lets step away from the sermonizing please.
And on that note, I will point out to the fellow believers that sermonizing does you no good here, anyway.

[NeonSamurai]

I don't think any of us have an issue with discussing religion in an intellectual and rational fashion. There have been several discussions on that. Also anyone is free to challenge Sky's views on Islam regardless of their own religious views, just as Sky is free to espouse his views. All provided they stay within the bounds of rational discourse.

What we do not need is sermons though. Sermons tend to go beyond the limits of rationality (ie logically demonstrable or provable) and intellectualism. Bluntly put they go into the realm of fantasy; of pure hypothesis without any physical backing. This is the realm of faith and belief. This is also the area where people tend to get very angry if their beliefs are challenged. It is pointless to discuss such stuff as the debate will go nowhere, the believer will continue to believe no matter how much rational counter evidence is provided, and both parties will get upset in the end. That and I have to say that I strongly dislike when others insist on throwing their religious beliefs in my face. I don't care what you believe in, just don't expect me to believe it too just because you do. I also do not like organized religion as I think it generally causes far more harm than good.

That said, if you choose to believe in God, Jesus, Muhammad, the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, or the invisible pink unicorn in the sky. I am happy for you, believe it all you want if it helps you.

[Takeda Shingen]

Is this thread really necessary? This forum is no missionising board or a board over confessions on personal fantasies one holds. Where there is no religious propaganda pushed into the public space, there no anti-religious people must feel provoked by being missionised and must not push their antireligious stuff into public as well - like Castout and me just have demonstrated: the one guy starts to preach, the other sends back a shot in reply. Peace is maintained, and everybody is still free to think what he wants in private, with the public space not needing to bother for either the one or the other. And that's how it should be in a secular society, with any kind of relgion there is and atheism as well. Keep your oh so precious convictions pro of contra to yourselves, where they belong. They belong nowhere else than to the inside of your mind. Nature, the world, the cosmos give nothing for them, and many people live here that do not want to need giving time and awareness for them either.

Play your radio at volume levels where you do not bother your neighbours.

I would simply lock this and similiar threads.

By that logic, no one should ever discuss anything for want of keeping peace with those who see an opposing point of view. I imagine that this would specifically apply to topical discussion involving matter that is held in near religious conviction by it's participants, as in politics, economics, diplomacy and global terrorism. In fact, I'll make a point of reminding you of this the next time you begin to rail against Islam which, given how frequently it occurs, will probably be sometime later today. :O:

Let the religious guys have their thread. I said that I think it is a bad idea, but I also say the same thing about politics and that doesn't seem to stop anyone, you included. As long as no one is breaking any rules, then all is well and you can just avoid clicking on the thread if it bothers you. That's what I do.

[Skybird]

@ Lance

I do not start discussions where I try to convince others of my religious convictions. Criticism of a relgion, Islam in case of your reference, is something different in this case, because mainly it effects fields of politics and our societies, and I would give a damn for Islam if people falling for it just would keep it a private issue that they do not want to effect society. Unfortunately, the islamic agenda is being driven into our societies day in day out, it does not differ between plitics and religion. Thus, it inevitably always is politics, and to me, it is more politics than religion.

If you want to compare me to Castout's virtuous preaching that he intends as a form of missionising, you would need to show me where I start threads on atheism and trying to missionise people into it. I don't, and in a longer ago past at best started a thread on Pat Condell - and even this is long ago.

But I react to people reserving the right that they may sing their religious song and the neighbourhood just has to listen to it each time they do. so if they show up on the scene, so do I, and when they keep private what is a private thing anyway, then I stay put, too. The magic word is: reciprocity. Save me from you relgious sermoins, and I save you from my atheist criticsm. Bring your sermon upon us and upon me, and I am going after you. That simple. because in a scular society like ours, many people think like I do - and do not want to be bothered by other people's religous mission time and again. Like I also do not want to listen to your radio time and again - so the hell keep the volumen at a levbel where others must not listen to your music, too.

It is illogical to label atheism a religion. You want to give it a bad name: that of religion. But atheism is no relgion. It is the rejection of theistic relgion, and the demand for evidence for theistic claims. You could as well conclude that refusing to learn how to drive a car is a form of car driving. It is absurd.

Neon Samurai brought it to the point when calling it "sermonising". I reserve the right to deand that your freedom of speech ends where you demand me to listen to your sermon even if I do not want that, so that you imply that I must leave the public place/space, because you claim it for yourself. That is kind of an abuse of free speech. Also, it is known by now where religious threads lead to - right onto that track we are now on, again.

If I would do like this on atheism, and launch threads on it time and again, you would not so much call it free speech, but me trying to dominate the forum and driving people away in disgust. Having a discussion on religious implications of some matters, is one thing, for example if discussing the impact of scientific insight on human history and culture and how it changed it. But "sermonising" is something different. Talking about religion in a context that is not religion in itself, is one thing. Propagating religion and why it is so nice to believe in this deity or that goddess, makes missionising the name of the game - and that is something very different than just "talking about religion".

In other words: keep your radio volume such that it does not bother your neighboiurs.And if you park a pickup loaded with that certain brown smelly stuff in the street, don't be surprised if some neigbours become the more upset the longer you wait to remove it again. Missionising means to push religion into the public space - and then it is not religious only anymore but becomes politics, and claim for social influence and power and effcting secular soceity. I do not wish any relgion to shape and form secular societies. Becasue that is the explciti end of secularism - but my freedom and our freedom is worth a thousand times more than any religion's desires or claims for untouchability. and that is why defending freedom can lead to situations where even offending religion can become a moral obligation and a civil duty, if you are serous about freedom.

Keep thy religion to thyself. That's where it belongs - and nowhere else.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Castout and Jumpy: Please reread the forum rules on swearing, psedo-swearing and *********.

[Tribesman]

I do not start discussions where I try to convince others of my religious convictions.
A belief in global conspiracies and claiming the existance of non existant legislation fits all the criteria.

I don't, and in a longer ago past at best started a thread on Pat Condell - and even this is long ago.

Thats that failed comedian Sky repeatedly links to when he isn't doing any of his other frequently repeated links or adding another obsessive signature to the bottom of his posts as he isn't preachy on his prolesytising subjects as he has read lots of books which makes him just correct and not at all sermonising.
I do wish he would link to another "Blacks and Muslims are evil" page again as that really illustrates the ugly truth of his own chosen faith.

[Dowly]

@ Castout and Jumpy: Please reread the forum rules on swearing, psedo-swearing and *********.

The rules state that the use of asterisk as part of the naughty word is against the rules. As in trying to circumvent the filter. Don't see anything about saying **** for example as the filter will censor it anywho.


I don't think any of us have an issue with discussing religion in an intellectual and rational fashion.

If you find one, please let me know. :O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I do not start discussions where I try to convince others of my religious convictions. Criticism a relgion, Islam in case of your reference, is something different in this case, because mainly it effects fields of politics and our societies, and I would give a damn for Islam if people falling for it just would keep it a private issue that they do not want to effect society. Unfortuhnately, the islamic agenda is being driven into our societies day in day out. To me, it is more poltiics than relgion.
And I know as much, I read all your anti-Islam posts. My point was that in addressing politics, you bring up religion; critically, perhaps, but you still bring it up. So in essence you're saying that it is acceptable to decry a religion for reasons other than that it is a religion, but it is not acceptable to promote, or even discuss, a religion for reasons other than that it is a religion. In this I am not referring to Castout's post, just trying to ascertain your criterion.
If you want to compare me to Castout's virtuous preaching that he intends as a form of missionising, you would need to show me where I start threads on atheism and trying to missionise people into it. I don't, and in a longer ago past at best started a thread on Pat Condell - and even this is long ago. I'll just take your word for it on the "thread" thing.
However, you missionize against religion (even if you don't call it missionizing "for" aetheism) as evidenced by your first post in this thread. You openly mock it through that picture alone. In other threads, you generate long cases against it, and then you insist that people of religion should be silent, just as you are doing here. In no other area of discussion is this considered acceptable except for hacking and the like.

But I react to people reserving the right that they may sing their religious song and the neighbourhood just has to listen to it each time they do. so if they show up on the scene, so do I, and when they keep private what is a private thing anyway, then I stay put, too. The magic word is: reciprocity. Save me from you relgious sermoins, and I save you from my atheist criticsm. Bring your sermon upon us and upon me, and I am going after you. That simple. because in a scular society like ours, many people think like I do - and do not want to be bothered by other people's religous mission time and again.
Here again, you actively proselytize against religion, despite your purported platform of reciprocity. The thread title is "Religious Poll". It seems to me that such a thread would hold interest only for people who wanted to know something about a religious poll. Unlike a loud radio, you did not have to listen to it. But you went in anyway for the sole purpose of attacking religion.

It is illogical to label atheism a religion. You want to give it a bad name: that of religion. But atheism is no relgion. It is the rejection of theistic relgion, and the demand for evidence for theistic claims. You could as well conclude that refusing to learn how to drive a car is a form of car driving. It is absurd.
I don't want to give aetheism a bad name, and if I did, I wouldn't choose religion. In any case, it is kind of like a religion because it is a belief based entirely upon faith in the non-existence of a higher power, when really, nobody knows either way. Atheism has a guess. It's a pretty convincing guess to many, but it's still a guess.

NeonSamurai brought it to the point when calling it "sermonising". I reserve the right to deand that your freedom of speech ends where you demand me to listen to your sermon even if I do not want that
By that logic, all books and internet content within your sight or hearing that you are not interested in are abridgements of free speech. You don't have to read them. Sometimes, people like to discuss religion. If you don't, don't. If you want to attack religion, fine. Just don't tell people to keep their opinions to themselves simply because you don't want to hear them.

If I would do like this on atheism, and launch threads on it time and again, you would not so much call it free speech, but me trying to dominate the forum and driving people away in disgust.....
As if religion had ever dominated this forum. I've seen some threads that lasted a while, but secular events tend to dominate this forum. Besides, how often do people ever change their minds about anything here? Are you afraid they're going to start a church?:DL

I do not wish any relgion to shape and form secular societies. Becasue that is the explciti end of secularism - but my freedom and our freedom is worth a thousand times more than any religion's desires or claims for untouchability. and that is why defending freedom can lead to situations where even offending religion can become a moral obligation and a civil duty, if you are serous about freedom.
Oh, I'm serious about freedom, and that includes freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. We can discuss that when I have more energy to type if you wish.

For the time being, I apologize for the sermonizing of others. I don't preach to you (other than to annoy you at times:DL) so I hope you'll continue to talk with me. Feel free to respond to anything above, I'm ready.

[WarlordATF]

I don't care what anyone believes, its there choice. However most faiths request that their members spread their message and by telling them to keep it to themselves infringes on their faith.

Those that believe have just as much right to voice it as those who do not and if they can not respect others views how can they expect anyone to respect their point of view?

I believe that there is something greater than that which we can see, hear, touch or measure. I have had situations in my life that have caused me to have this faith, just as i am sure others have had things cause them to believe otherwise, neither side has the right to silence the other because it does not fit in with our own feelings.

I can't force my views onto anyone else, nor would i want to. We must each find our own path through this life, but no one can force me to believe that the faith that has given me comfort in times of hopelessness should be kept to myself because it can not be proven by current science. There are many times throughout history that both science and faith was proven wrong.

I can respect the choice of those who do not believe in God and there right to speak of it, why is it so hard for them to respect the faith of others?

How we choose to live is based on what is in our own hearts and minds and none of us will really know who is right or wrong until that last breath leaves our bodies.

[August]

Fine. Must we be interested in your precious little sermon? Don't think so. Keep your fantasies where they belong - inside your head.


He has as much right to talk about what he wants as you do. Nobody is making you click on his threads.

[antikristuseke]

I don't want to give aetheism a bad name, and if I did, I wouldn't choose religion. In any case, it is kind of like a religion because it is a belief based entirely upon faith in the non-existence of a higher power, when really, nobody knows either way. Atheism has a guess. It's a pretty convincing guess to many, but it's still a guess.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, not a claim that the supernatural can not exist. There is a difference there as the former dows not involve any guesswork while the later does.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, not a claim that the supernatural can not exist. There is a difference there as the former dows not involve any guesswork while the latter does.

Oh, rly? Please describe the nature of the universe then.

[Skybird]

However, you missionize against religion (even if you don't call it missionizing "for" aetheism) as evidenced by your first post in this thread. You openly mock it through that picture alone. In other threads, you generate long cases against it, and then you insist that people of religion should be silent, just as you are doing here. In no other area of discussion is this considered acceptable except for hacking and the like.

I am reacting to relgious poeple making claims and sermons in name ofn their relgion. And I said that I reserve the right to react to them. If people would not try to push their faith into the public sphere and make others aware of how much they are in love with their deity(ies), then you would not hear me cojmplaijng about religion. My problem with does not start before others do not show up and think it is a good idea to missionise for it.

Click on my name, profile, and there is the option to show all threads started by me. then see hoa many threads you find that have been started by me to propagate atheism. ;)

Since last new year'S eve, I have started/initiated 146 threads. I just checked the first three pages with results for what threats I have started. Threads started on christianity, atheism, church, mocking religion: zero. rien. nada. not a single one. none. Threads I started on Islam since Decembre last years: 3; one on a cartoonist shot, one with a "reprint" of an old essay of mine, one on the French football team. So these three even were not even intended to illuminate islam itself, but where motivated by events that cannot escape to be seen in context with Islam. there are also several poltical threads, where one cannot escape to link to islam as well. As I said: Islam IS politics, much more and more troublesome than the churches cause political mess these days. islam is a political ideology more than anything else.


Here again, you actively proselytize against religion, despite your purported platform of reciprocity. The thread title is "Religious Poll". It seems to me that such a thread would hold interest only for people who wanted to know something about a religious poll. Unlike a loud radio, you did not have to listen to it. But you went in anyway for the sole purpose of attacking religion.
You will not see me doing such a poll on atheism, nor have I ever done that. But I claim the right to react to people making the first step to bring relgion into the public sphere. And that is the case if you start a thread on religion. Possibly I would have just red the thread without reacting - but that was only before I reached Castout's posting with the sermon of his.

Ypou see, the porblem with pro-reilgious people is that they claim the public sphere for themselves, like naturally. they actively engage and go after other people trying to bring them under their religious umbrella. The claim the free speech for doing so - but when people not sharing their views start to fell distorubed and nerved becasue they do not want to leave the public space they are in just becasue the relgious have made it a platform for themselves - then suddenly the sky is falling, and it is claimed harassement and lacking tolerance. In brief: the rlegious then accuse antirelgious people of doing what the relgious often explicitly do themselves. I reject to accept this happening, here, and in real life as well. and I made serveal early remarks in this thread and in others as well begging for the "other side" to not poush further then i would not need to take opposing stand and the way this thread is going now could be avoided. But no, it is religion that must be pushed, the prwachign started, inevitably the reminder came in that I am free to leave the place to that, and in general, it is free speech anyway, isn't it? Well, then you also have to live with people taking the opposite stand for the sake of balance. It is a bad habit of mine from real life to not fall back from religions' claims to get special status unopposed and without being criticised.

I don't want to give aetheism a bad name, and if I did, I wouldn't choose religion. In any case, it is kind of like a religion because it is a belief based entirely upon faith in the non-existence of a higher power, when really, nobody knows either way. Atheism has a guess. It's a pretty convincing guess to many, but it's still a guess.
Atheism is the natural state, to which religion adds an artifical effort of adding soemthing to it by making a c,laim that it just - well, that it just claims. no leaf of a tree, no animal, no drop of water and not cloud in the sky cares for relgion'S made by homo sapines. No supernova and no black hole, no star and no pkanet, no proton and no electron knows or cares for claims made by relgion, nor is it effected by such claims. So, relgion is the cause of something artifical that is uniquly attached to humans, and humans alone. that mans, this quaolity it adds to the forms of existence, called "god", is to be proven by religion, because relgion causes the disoute - not nature, or a way of human thinking not following the concept of religion. the burden of evei9dence mis upt to relgion, jot to atheism. And this - the claim, and thus the burden of evidence - is what sets athei9sm and relgion apart. If oyu mean athei9sm is drivejn fanatically by some so that it compares in style to relgion, then you may have a point with some people who may be fanatics indeed. But atheism is not like that by nature and real origin. atheism just says: you say there is a god, well if you want to convince me you have to come up with evidence, and if you cannot, then I leave thing the way they are and will not subscribe to your claim nor will I sit and watch you trying to turn over society to depend un your unporven claims and hallucinations. And that is not fanatism at all.

You may remember that I strictly differ between spirituality, and religion. Man is a reflective creature capable to put itself into question, and to wonderabout its own existence. that is what is his spirituality, it is a modus operandi of our life. It is the reason why we search and research, why we try to leanr and find out, try to discover and widen our knowledge. Religion claims to know ultimatel final answers whose concepts it never has tested and refuses to ever test. Both could not be more apart.


Oh, I'm serious about freedom, and that includes freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. We can discuss that when I have more energy to type if you wish.
I relate to my last diuscissio0n with Steve where I defended my opinion that any freedom and tolerance that does not know limits (in the face of tolerating that which tries to destroy tolerance by absuing freedom) necessrily and ultimately must lead to the destriuction of freedom. I am in rejection of absolute freedom concepts, therefore. where the other uses his freedom to destroy freedom, the fun and joking is ending for me.

What this nthread and my early recommendation to skip it comes down to, is this: every action has reaction. In case of relgious threats the pattern and utcome is known by experience, and it hardly will result in new insights or anything pleasurable for anyone. So I fail to see the need of having another threat on it. If it were a political issue that has seen new develoepments recently, pokay, then there would be soemthign new. But this religious versus atheists thing is - the same procedure as everytime, without anything new at all.

So why?

Damn, I forgot the clock.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Guys, guys, guys... If you didn't want to get into a debate about religion, rightly or wrongly, then don't answer to a thread titled Religious Poll!

Personally, I thought it was a deep and meaningful discussion about Pope John Paul II, but I guess that was the wrong pole :O: Ooh, I'm a gonna burn tonight.

[Sammi79]

Of course it is everyones personal right to believe what they wish to believe, However, I strongly disagree that metaphysical thinking should be in any way involved in government or primary education as is very much the case over most of the world. Present day politicians cannot be seen to be 'unreligious' dare I say ATHEIST whatever they may really believe because 1 thing they definitely believe (and almost certainly it is true) is that they will lose a vast amount of support from the religious masses. This coupled with the biblical creationist nonsense (and all the others too, Judaism/Islam/insert religion of your choice here) that is taught to children who are too young to make rational judgements about it for themselves angers me greatly. This is not the dark ages anymore. We have scientific method, and vast amounts of evidence that strongly suggests that 'GOD' in the form of a intelligent creator entity who is omniprescient and/or omnipotent or for that matter ever has or had a single thought about humanity or anything else is a hopeless infantile fantasy. Yes, the universe is a deeply mystical and awe inspiring place with unfathomable depths of beauty and emptiness, serenity and violence, and I like to think there is a sort of saturating background energy (not in any way to be considered a conscious entity) that makes everything 'be' or 'go' but it does not need gods/devils/afterlives to be this way, at least not for me.

Truthfully, even with all our evidence we will never be able to say for 100% certain that god does not exist. No. What we can say is 99.999999% certain god does not exist. Are you really gonna go with that 0.000001%? seems sort of like betting on a blind, lame, 3 legged horse with a 20 stone jockey to win the grand national no? Still there's nothing quite like a non-existent pantheon of deities and demons to pass the buck on to is there, otherwise we'd have to admit that we, human beings ourselves, are actually the ones responsible for all the great blundering attrocities we continue to commit. Heaven forbid! :o

Ooops I've gone and said it now. (cringes back from the metaphysical rotten tomatos undoubtedly heading this way...)

[August]

Guys, guys, guys... If you didn't want to get into a debate about religion, rightly or wrongly, then don't answer to a thread titled Religious Poll!

You'd think that would be easy enough...

[Sailor Steve]

Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, not a claim that the supernatural can not exist. There is a difference there as the former dows not involve any guesswork while the later does.

Oh, rly? Please describe the nature of the universe then.
I'm not seeing how his definition and your challenge are related.

[ryanglavin]

Heh, I asked a question, and a possible flame war started.
I'm good at this.

[Dowly]

I'm not seeing how his definition and your challenge are related.

It's one of those "show stopper" arguments that especially the "believers" like to use. :yep: (I hope no one takes offence of what I said, but I have seen that happen so so so many times)

[Sailor Steve]

@What little I know about God is that

God is kind enough to actually love the people who don't know Him at all and powerful enough to literally change our heart. Generous enough to give without being asked, loving enough to give what was asked even when it was really ridiculous, still enough not to give everything that we asked, and strict enough to know that He is GOD such that we are reminded that we're never be on equal terms with God,

God I know is NOT MEEK. Never was, never is and never will be.
And you "know" all this how?

[ryanglavin]

Flame war!!! Duck and cover!!!

[Takeda Shingen]

Heh, I asked a question, and a possible flame war started.
I'm good at this.

This is not a flame war. No one is calling anybody names. They're participating in a discussion about religion; a discussion that you started.


Flame war!!! Duck and cover!!!

Again, no. Could it be that you actually want people to start flaming each other? I am starting to question your motivation for beginning this topic. :-?

[SteamWake]

A religious poll? I dont even know what that might be.

But yea it seems like a little bit of pot stirring going on here.

[ryanglavin]

Again, no. Could it be that you actually want people to start flaming each other? I am starting to question your motivation for beginning this topic. :-?

All I was wondering was if we ever had a religious poll, I.E. what you believe in.
I hate flame wars personally, which is why I said that in my first post saying that I didn't want a flame war started.

[Takeda Shingen]

I hate flame wars personally, which is why I said that in my first post saying that I didn't want a flame war started.

And one has not started.

[frau kaleun]

Are you afraid they're going to start a church?:DL

I am totally starting the First Church of Subsim.

Our Onkel, who art in Texas,
'Neil' is not thy name...

[UnderseaLcpl]

I am totally starting the First Church of Subsim.

Our Onkel, who art in Texas,
'Neil' is not thy name...

Thy forum to run,
Thy will be done,
Lest the server vexes....

[frau kaleun]

Thy forum to run,
Thy will be done,
Lest the server vexes....

Give us this day our User Control Panel,
And forgive us our infractions
So long as we straighten up and fly right.

[WarlordATF]

A Men and Women! :O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Give us this day our User Control Panel,
And forgive us our infractions
So long as we straighten up and fly right.

And lead us not into flame wars,
But deliver us from spammers and bots,
For Thine is the Onkel, and the Neal, and the Admin forever.

Amen.

edit- get out of the prayer, Warlord. Is nothing sacred to you :P

[frau kaleun]

edit- get out of the prayer, Warlord. Is nothing sacred to you :P

:rotfl2:

Burn the blasphemer!

See? Religion: totally harmless. :O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Precisely, it only burns blasphemers! WTH is wrong with atheists?

[Penguin]

Thank Zeus I'm a heretic and not a blasphemer, so I won't be burned! :O:

So how to deal with other forums: start a crusade against them? send missionaries? Or let them be wiped out when the apocalypse comes?

[frau kaleun]

Thank Zeus I'm a heretic

We stone those, starting next Tuesday.

[Konovalov]

We stone those, starting next Tuesday.
Stoning is not appropriate here at the religion of Subsim. I say send them down to crush depth to meet thy make Onkel Neal. :arrgh!:

[Takeda Shingen]

So that would make keelhauling the act of being officially excommunicated.

[frau kaleun]

Stoning is not appropriate here at the religion of Subsim. I say send them down to crush depth to meet thy make Onkel Neal. :arrgh!:

But we're throwing really sharp stones. At their pressure hulls.

Actually not so much "throwing" as "dropping from overhead."

Also they're totally bombs instead of stones, but whatever. Our god is not in the details.

[Penguin]

I'll better keep my holy Tauchretter ready to use!

[UnderseaLcpl]

But we're throwing really sharp stones. At their pressure hulls.

Actually not so much "throwing" as "dropping from overhead."

Also they're totally bombs instead of stones, but whatever. Our god is not in the details.

They aren't usually bombs, they're depth charges. There's a considerable difference between the two in the scriptures.

See? This is why we can't allow women in the clergy! They misinterpret the scriptures to meet their needs at the cost of the Church!

[WarlordATF]

It Burns!! It Burns!! It...





























Kinda Tickles :O:

[frau kaleun]

They aren't usually bombs, they're depth charges. There's a considerable difference between the two in the scriptures.

See? This is why we can't allow women in the clergy! They misinterpret the scriptures to meet their needs at the cost of the Church!

This is merely a difference of interpretation based on the ambiguous language of our Holy Scriptures, The Principia Subsimmia, or How I Found The Nelson And What I Did When I Found Her.

In the original text, written in Lolcat, the phrase in question is "esplodey t'ings."

You say depth charges, I say bombs, let's blow the whole thing up.

[jumpy]

I can has a blow ballast?

[frau kaleun]

So that would make keelhauling the act of being officially excommunicated.

Somebody needs to photoshop us a picture of Neal in a pope hat stat.

Bonus points if he's also wearing Prada.

[Wolfehunter]

Because it will cause a flame war.. hehehe.

But I like this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n0jiFoFfl0

Some logic in this. :03:

[frau kaleun]

I can has a blow ballast?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=144&pictureid=1015

[Skybird]

But I like this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n0jiFoFfl0

Some logic in this. :03:

Some relief in that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t88l8bIkWcM&feature=related

Mean. Nasty. German. :D

[Dowly]

I' m noit sure if i have answred this one yet, but I gota say this is very stupid poll. I can''t find the vote butttons! :doh:

[frau kaleun]

I' m noit sure if i have answred this one yet, but I gota say this is very stupid poll. I can''t find the vote butttons! :doh:

I told you that rotgut would turn you blind.

[Dowly]

*sad panda*

[Herr-Berbunch]

I was last in this thread about 6 hours ago and thought the spirit of subsim was disappearing...:nope:
...but now the p-taking has resumed my faith, thanks guys, and lolfrau :yeah:

[Platapus]

This is merely a difference of interpretation based on the ambiguous language of our Holy Scriptures, The Principia Subsimmia, or How I Found The Nelson And What I Did When I Found Her.

In the original text, written in Lolcat, the phrase in question is "esplodey t'ings."

You say depth charges, I say bombs, let's blow the whole thing up.

Well done, you are on a roll. Now get off the roll before you squish it. :salute:

[ryanglavin]

I told you that rotgut would turn you blind.

hey, we don't listen well frau. I had to drop back down to Crown Royal.

[frau kaleun]

hey, we don't listen well frau. I had to drop back down to Crown Royal.

I think Dowly's gotten into the anti-sacramental wine again. :nope:

http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens4812342module35163852photo_1242975629dru nk_ferret.jpg

[Castout]

I chose not to read the posts after my post :D. Liberal in saying what I know YES Courage under fire? NO.

Besides not looking for a debate and if I read I would be compelled in the end to reply and hence the debate. Best fired and forget.:O:

[UnderseaLcpl]

This is merely a difference of interpretation based on the ambiguous language of our Holy Scriptures, The Principia Subsimmia, or How I Found The Nelson And What I Did When I Found Her.

In the original text, written in Lolcat, the phrase in question is "esplodey t'ings."

You say depth charges, I say bombs, let's blow the whole thing up.

Aww.... I was hoping for a schism. :wah:

[Takeda Shingen]

I chose not to read the posts after my post :D. Liberal in saying what I know YES Courage under fire? NO.

Besides not looking for a debate and if I read I would be compelled in the end to reply and hence the debate. Best fired and forget.:O:

Then you missed some good laughs. It's been off-topic and goofy for the last two-and-a-half pages.

[Dowly]

I think Dowly's gotten into the anti-sacramental wine again. :nope:

http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens4812342module35163852photo_1242975629dru nk_ferret.jpg

I havent! Is on beer and (atm) salt crakcers and this stupi d cheese who just doesnt want to coopearte with me. :nope:

[ryanglavin]

I havent! Is on beer and (atm) salt crakcers and this stupi d cheese who just doesnt want to coopearte with me. :nope:

Oh God, is that a picture of dowly on a good day?

[TLAM Strike]

Did someone say Religious Pole?
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1095/festivuspole.jpg

[antikristuseke]

Oh, rly? Please describe the nature of the universe then. 42?
Don't really understand the question, but if you mean how the universe came to be, I would have to admit that I did not know, but unlike people of faith, I do not claim to have that answer in the for of god did it.

[Castout]

Then you missed some good laughs. It's been off-topic and goofy for the last two-and-a-half pages.

I've had some traumatic forum experience in less than honorable sgforums . . . . so excuse my cowardice :D. The word in that forum was Govt employed cyber bullies. I believe their unit motto was to kill with words of course qualifications were so low as you don't need IQ to throw insults and derogatory remarks. It wasn't always like that. In the end the silly corrupt govt of Singapore intervened and cracked down on the critics and it was never the same forum again. The other posters wouldn't dare to get in the way of them and when I fought back they reported me to mod and I got banned temporarily. It was obviously not a fair ground so I started my blog instead.

[Lionclaw]

Did someone say Religious Pole?

:DL

"Festivus for the rest of us."

[Skybird]

I think Dowly's gotten into the anti-sacramental wine again. :nope:

http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens4812342module35163852photo_1242975629dru nk_ferret.jpg

:haha:

[frau kaleun]

:DL

"Festivus for the rest of us."

Let the Airing of Grievances begin! :woot:

[frau kaleun]

I havent! Is on beer and (atm) salt crakcers and this stupi d cheese who just doesnt want to coopearte with me. :nope:

:shifty:

*whispers*

Don't look now but I think your keyboard and the cheese are conspiring against you.

[Herr-Berbunch]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4885273050_fc4efdfba0_b.jpg

[frau kaleun]

^^ :haha:

To bring this back around (somewhat) to the OP's topic, some may find this to be of interest:

http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/

It's a "test" in which you answer a series of questions regarding your personal beliefs and then get a list of the spiritual/religious traditions that most closely correspond to them. It's a bit more complex and thoughtful than most internet quizzes and the results can sometimes be very surprising.

We post the link periodically at a comparative mythology/religion group that I co-moderate. Usually makes for some interesting discussions.

My "top ten":

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (94%)
3. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (93%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (88%)
5. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
6. Neo-Pagan (71%)
7. Mahayana Buddhism (68%)
8. Taoism (67%)
9. Non-theist (67%)
10. New Age (63%)

[Herr-Berbunch]

Here's mine...

1. Secular Humanism (100%) :yeah:
2. Non-theist (92%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (80%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
5. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (67%)
6. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (61%)
7. Sikhism (57%)
8. Neo-Pagan (53%)
9. Taoism (53%)
10. Reform Judaism (48%)

[TLAM Strike]

My result Secular Humanism 100% match... No surprise there.

The rest of my top ten:


Unitarian Universalism
Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends
Non-theist
Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants
Reform Judaism
Theravada Buddhism
Neo-Pagan
Taoism
Mormon

[Herr-Berbunch]

Those Quakers sure get up there, don't know why! :nope:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Since that last post a minute ago, the sky has gone really dark, rain has started to pour down and there is some lovely thunder/lightning - Ye gads, Zeus has it in for me now :wah:

Edit: View out my office...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4885516986_847c3567af_b.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

I told you that rotgut would turn you blind.

Of all the things that would turn Dowly blind.... I never figured it would be the rotgut. I always had him pegged for going blind due to taking matters ... well.... into is own hands....

*sorry Dowly - that was too good of an opportunity to pass up! :rotfl2:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Of all the things that would turn Dowly blind.... I never figured it would be the rotgut. I always had him pegged for going blind due to taking matters ... well.... into is own hands....

*sorry Dowly - that was too good of an opportunity to pass up! :rotfl2:

Quality :har:

[frau kaleun]

Those Quakers sure get up there, don't know why! :nope:

I had a friend I recommended that test to... she was raised Southern Baptist and had remained in that denomination throughout her life - not so much because she still adhered to everything they taught, but because she enjoyed a lot of the social aspects of it. But she was starting to feel more and more uncomfortable with the cultural/political agenda being preached and pushed by her church. She took the test and came up 100% Liberal Quaker and it seemed like a real eye-opener for her.

[Lionclaw]

1. Secular Humanism (100 %)
2. Unitarian Universalism (87 %)
3. Non-theist (80 %)
4. Theravada Buddhism (71 %)
5. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (69 %)
6. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (54 %)
7. Neo-Pagan (51 %)
8. New Age (43 %)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (41 %)
10. Reform Judaism (40 %)

[Sammi79]

1. Unitarian Universalism
2. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends
3. Secular Humanism
4. Theravada Buddhism
5. New Age
6. Taoism
7. Neo-Pagan
8. Mahayana Buddhism
9. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants
10. Reform Judaism

^ my top 10. Very interesting site, Frau, lots of info on the various belief systems, though having had a good look through I'm definitely more of a secular humanist (3rd on my list), as my tolerance for deistic or supernatural belief in others decreases the older I get. Sometimes I think religious peeps should be treated as if they have a sort of chronic sickness, inflexibility or dependancy of the mind, you know, disqualified from particular political, educative or civil service jobs and given rehabilitation and/or welfare etc...
Central to any belief system there should surely be an acceptance that whatever you believe could well be totally wrong and the ability to change your mind when presented with evidence which suggests that it is flawed. If I wake up after I die I will gladly accept that there is an afterlife, just as if God/Allah/Odin/Toutatis reveals him/her/itself to me (and I'm absolutely certain that it's not some sort of hallucination) then I will from that point on believe in a God until then however I will continue to put my faith in humanities quest for knowledge and evidence which so far has plausible answers to a great many questions that religious thinking can not and will never adequately describe, because it requires you to shut your eyes and ask no questions (or hear no rational answers).

Discussion on this subject is very important because religious indoctrination especially militant fundamentalist types poses a very real and dangerous threat to people globally as has been proven repeatedly throughout recorded history, with some of the more disturbing examples occuring within the last century.

I do not intend to offend but I feel duty bound to speak my mind on this subject for the aforementioned, and the defence of, logic and reason.

Sam.

[ryanglavin]

Well, I believe in Greek mythology, so I kind of expected to get Mayahana Buddhism as my #1. They are similar, in a way.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I see a subsim Secular Humanism theme here... :yep:

Just looked it up on wikiwhateveritis and yes, I agree to just about all points. Also looked up to see what famous people were SH (geddit) and there are a bunch of anti-politicals, sci-fi people, but the people I like best on the list are Thom Yorke (Radiohead) and Linda Smith (very, very witty and funny comedian - died in 2006). Everyone else seemed a bit leftfield for me :doh:

[Sailor Steve]

1. Non-theist (100%)
2. Seclular Humanism (100%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (66%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (50%)
5. Liberal Quakers (44%)
6. Neo-Pagan (44%)
7. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants
8. New Age (26%)
9. Taoism (22%)
10. Hinduism (17%)

I had a friend I recommended that test to... she was raised Southern Baptist and had remained in that denomination throughout her life - not so much because she still adhered to everything they taught, but because she enjoyed a lot of the social aspects of it. But she was starting to feel more and more uncomfortable with the cultural/political agenda being preached and pushed by her church. She took the test and came up 100% Liberal Quaker and it seemed like a real eye-opener for her.
It always comes as a surprise to see what you actually think laid out alongside the stated doctrines of different faiths. I guess "Non-Theist" is a good a description as any, but I answered most of questions with "Not sure".

[Herr-Berbunch]

Neo-Pagans, are they like the Wickerman, but more of a cotton-polyester blend man ;)

[frau kaleun]

Well, I believe in Greek mythology, so I kind of expected to get Mayahana Buddhism as my #1. They are similar, in a way.

I've taken this test many times and although I usually get about the same mix in the top 10-15, the order in which they appear varies. I don't know that it's because my beliefs are changing that much over time, I suspect it's because for some of the questions none of the possible responses is ever quite "dead on" for me. So a lot depends on whether I'm leaning a little towards this one, or that one, on any given day.

Personally I also expect Mahayana Buddhism to be much nearer the top than it ever is, since AFAIK it includes Zen and Zen teaching resonates for me like nothing else.

I will have to say though that as far as Western mythic systems go, the Greeks would be my first choice, although with them as with all such traditions I consider it in terms of metaphorical validity rather than literal truth. Once joined a "Hellenic Neo-Pagan" discussion group which was a bit of fun until someone there started telling me that I would be "offending" one of the deities by doing or not doing something we were talking about... I was looking at this from a psychological/metaphorical perspective and replied accordingly but it soon became clear that others in the group believed in the literal existence of the Greek pantheon, which, no thanks.

But as archetypal figures - they are the ones I most often fall back on in order to articulate or illustrate some metaphorical reality. In that sense they are to me like very old friends.

[frau kaleun]

I see a subsim Secular Humanism theme here... :yep:

I don't know that it's a Subsim thing, necessarily, as IME at least there are almost always a few of the same things that come out in the top 10 every time I see people take this test and show their results.

I suspect it's because those people who are willing to take the test in the first place are already curious - in a positive way - about belief systems other than their own, and thus more likely to be less rigid in their spiritual attitudes. Or they are already asking themselves some of those questions and reconsidering some of the things they were taught and always accepted or never thought about before. Consequently they are more likely to get a list that includes traditions where honest inquiry and curiosity are accepted, encouraged, and not considered a departure from the "true faith."

OTOH people who are very rigid about their beliefs, who cannot accept the possibility that there is more than one possible answer to any of those questions, are probably never going to take that test. They have no reason to, because not questioning what they believe is a fundamental part of their belief system overall.

[Sailor Steve]

I ...because not questioning what they believe is a fundamental part of their belief system overall.
:yep::rock:

My personal feeling these days is that

1. If you can't laugh at yourself, you have no business laughing at anyone else.

2. If you don't question your own personal beliefs, ideas and motivations as much as you question others', you run the risk of never knowing when you're wrong.

[August]

OTOH people who are very rigid about their beliefs, who cannot accept the possibility that there is more than one possible answer to any of those questions, are probably never going to take that test. They have no reason to, because not questioning what they believe is a fundamental part of their belief system overall.

Or, like me, just can't be arsed to participate in yet another meaningless internet poll. :DL

[Sailor Steve]

Or, like me, just can't be arsed to participate in yet another meaningless internet poll. :DL
C'mon, man, what are you afraid of? :shifty:

Only joking of course. But don't you hate it when people do that for real?

[Takeda Shingen]

Cool. I'm a Quaker. And a Catholic. And a Mainline Protestant. And a Mormon. And a Jehovah's Witness. And an Orthodox Jew. Man, I'm confused.

1. Orthodox Quaker - Religious Society of Friends (100 %)
2. Seventh Day Adventist (95 %)
3. Eastern Orthodox (83 %)
4. Roman Catholic (83 %)
5. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (81 %)
6. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (80 %)
7. Jehovahs Witness (76 %)
8. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (68 %)
9. Orthodox Judaism (67 %)
10. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (62 %)

[Sailor Steve]

Wow! You're in the majority with all of those?

I was only 50% or higher on four. :cry:

[Dowly]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Non-theist (84%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (80%)

[Takeda Shingen]

Wow! You're in the majority with all of those?

I was only 50% or higher on four. :cry:

I know, odd. All I can think of is that the majority of my answers were leveled at 'medium' importance, with only a few rated 'highly' important and none of 'low' importance.

[Betonov]

When it comes to religion I always say, have faith, if not in a deity than in yourselves (isnt that atheism), but when it comes to religion as an instuitution I say disband them all. Just keep some priests for baptisms, weddings and funerals. I want to be burried by a priest than some public official

[frau kaleun]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Non-theist (84%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (80%)

4. Alcoholics Anonymous (79%)

:O:

How you feelin' today, big fella? No more trouble from insubordinate cheese, I hope.

[Takeda Shingen]

4. Alcoholics Anonymous (79%)

Noooooo. Dowly has no intention of resolving his alcoholism. :O:

[frau kaleun]

Cool. I'm a Quaker. And a Catholic. And a Mainline Protestant. And a Mormon. And a Jehovah's Witness. And an Orthodox Jew. Man, I'm confused.

The good news is, you can't die... they won't know where to send you.

[Takeda Shingen]

The good news is, you can't die... they won't know where to send you.

Yeah, but in the meantime I have to keep distributing all of these copies of The Watchtower. I had no idea that salvation was going to be so much work.

[Dowly]

4. Alcoholics Anonymous (79%)

:O:

How you feelin' today, big fella? No more trouble from insubordinate cheese, I hope.

The rebellion was quickly subdued and the rebels sent to the Salt Cracker penal colony.

[frau kaleun]

Yeah, but in the meantime I have to keep distributing all of these copies of The Watchtower. I had no idea that salvation was going to be so much work.

The upside is the longterm savings on birthday presents and Halloween candy.

[frau kaleun]

The rebellion was quickly subdued and the rebels sent to the Salt Cracker penal colony.

:up:

I still have fond memories of waking up one Sunday, checking my email, and finding a message I'd sent to one of my Yahoo groups the night before. The subject line was "im ssooo fickin dink" and it really didn't get any better from there. :D

[Dowly]

:up:

I still have fond memories of waking up one Sunday, checking my email, and finding a message I'd sent to one of my Yahoo groups the night before. The subject line was "im ssooo fickin dink" and it really didn't get any better from there. :D

Always nice to have that happen. :DL It seems I have gathered quite a few potential sig quotes during the night while discussing with Arclight and there was this one the got my attention... I'm still in awe what could have possibly result in this conversation:

Arclight: balls!
Dowly: BIG balls
Arclight: big squirrel balls!

Boggles the mind. :doh:

[Fish]

No need for a poll in the UK.

And now congregation, put your hands together and give thanks, for I come bearing Good News. Britain is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else. Some 63 percent of us are non-believers, according to an ICM study, while 82 percent say religion is a cause of harmful division. Now, let us stand and sing our new national hymn: Jerusalem was dismantled here/ in England's green and pleasant land.
How did it happen? For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end.
http://johannhari.com/2010/08/10/the-slow-whiny-death-of-british-christianity

[ryanglavin]

it soon became clear that others in the group believed in the literal existence of the Greek pantheon, which, no thanks.

But as archetypal figures - they are the ones I most often fall back on in order to articulate or illustrate some metaphorical reality. In that sense they are to me like very old friends.

Thats how I perceive them.. They are more like very old and close friends to me, if that makes any sense. I talk to them, and they talk to me. But it is my firm belief that you can't really offend a god, because we are so minuscule to them that it wouldn't really make a difference.

[WarlordATF]

<peeks head in> Did they put away the pitchforks and torches yet?

[Herr-Berbunch]

<peeks head in> Did they put away the pitchforks and torches yet?

Oh, yes. I rejoined after a few pages and had to go back to re-read. Much improved, the lecturers have moved on to something else. Now it's just the normal descending in to chaos, but in a fun way :D

[frau kaleun]

<peeks head in> Did they put away the pitchforks and torches yet?

It's the blasphemer!

http://wahsegavalleyfarm.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83519315253ef0120a52932e6970c-400wi

[FIREWALL]

I thought this was a Gameing Website. To discuss gameing.

There are Religious Websites to discuss Religion.

[frau kaleun]

I thought this was a Gameing Website. To discuss gameing.

There are Religious Websites to discuss Religion.

Uh... this is the General Topics forum. If we reduced it to gaming discussions it would barely exist. :O:

[frau kaleun]

Arclight: balls!
Dowly: BIG balls
Arclight: big squirrel balls!

http://chirho.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/color_sponge_rubber_balls.jpg

http://cinie.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/big_balls_std.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/xxx_Raven_xxx/LiveActionSquirrelWithBigBalls.jpg

[August]

I thought this was a Gameing Website. To discuss gameing.

There are Religious Websites to discuss Religion.

What Frau said, and may I add that nobody is forcing you to read religious threads.

"Don't click and you won't get sick"

[Penguin]

Not really a surprise to me:

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Theravada Buddhism (93%)
3. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (91%)
4. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
5. Non-theist (75%)
6. Taoism (70%)
7. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (65%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (61%)
9. Sikhism (55%)
10. Reform Judaism (49%)

Damn those secular humanists who overflow this forum! :)

[frau kaleun]

Thats how I perceive them.. They are more like very old and close friends to me, if that makes any sense. I talk to them, and they talk to me. But it is my firm belief that you can't really offend a god, because we are so minuscule to them that it wouldn't really make a difference.

I see "offending a god" entirely in metaphorical and psychological terms, where a person fails to give some archetypal force its proper due in some positive way (pushing it into the un- or subconscious and away from the ego) and, as a result, ends up being overwhelmed by the negative aspects of it.

For instance, a person could "offend" Aphrodite by convincing him/herself that only weak, needy people make fools of themselves over something as "inconsequential" as a romantic attachment. Love? Bah, humbug. Hallmark card nonsense, the ego says to itself. And Aphrodite says, O rly? Well, we'll just see about that. I will not be ignored by a mere mortal.

And so she sends Eros with his bow to put an arrow right smack into the heart of the offending disbeliever. Oh, hey, remember how you used to claim you were 'above' this kind of thing? Surprise! You're in love!

And suddenly the ego that never wanted to swim in that particular ocean, and which looked down on those who did, finds itself struggling just to keep from drowning in it.

From my own life, I can tell you that I "pay homage" to the gods of war by studying martial arts (and prolly by playing combat sims as well). The end result is that I'm a far more laid-back person than I used to be, far less likely to be suddenly overwhelmed by feelings of anger or aggressive, violent urges. I've found a way to honor those basic primal forces that integrates them into my life in a positive way, and so there's far less likelihood of that particular pot coming to an unexpected boil on a back burner I've convinced myself was never turned on. :up:

[Tribesman]

Did they put away the pitchforks and torches yet?
Do not hide the glimmer of salvation or the means to stack gods bountiful reward to see us through the darkness of the devils winter
Shine the light on the tools of the industrious for salvation comes to those who keep the rick in dryness for therin shall remain the sustenance and fortification in dark times.

[ryanglavin]

I see "offending a god" entirely in metaphorical and psychological terms, where a person fails to give some archetypal force its proper due in some positive way (pushing it into the un- or subconscious and away from the ego) and, as a result, ends up being overwhelmed by the negative aspects of it.

For instance, a person could "offend" Aphrodite by convincing him/herself that only weak, needy people make fools of themselves over something as "inconsequential" as a romantic attachment. Love? Bah, humbug. Hallmark card nonsense, the ego says to itself. And Aphrodite says, O rly? Well, we'll just see about that. I will not be ignored by a mere mortal.

And so she sends Eros with his bow to put an arrow right smack into the heart of the offending disbeliever. Oh, hey, remember how you used to claim you were 'above' this kind of thing? Surprise! You're in love!

And suddenly the ego that never wanted to swim in that particular ocean, and which looked down on those who did, finds itself struggling just to keep from drowning in it.

From my own life, I can tell you that I "pay homage" to the gods of war by studying martial arts (and prolly by playing combat sims as well). The end result is that I'm a far more laid-back person than I used to be, far less likely to be suddenly overwhelmed by feelings of anger or aggressive, violent urges. I've found a way to honor those basic primal forces that integrates them into my life in a positive way, and so there's far less likelihood of that particular pot coming to an unexpected boil on a back burner I've convinced myself was never turned on. :up:

I also do the same as you, but I pay homage to all my gods. They like revenge, but they usually don't kill for it.
Edit: wait, what do you believe in frau?

[ryanglavin]

Uh... this is the General Topics forum. If we reduced it to gaming discussions it would barely exist. :O:

Haha just imagine...
General topic gaming discussions...
What would you talk about?

[Tribesman]

Edit: wait, what do you believe in frau?
I think frau has belief of the silent and deep kind



Silent running .
Deep water.

[frau kaleun]

Haha just imagine...
General topic gaming discussions...
What would you talk about?

I like games, in general. :O:

[krashkart]

http://www.shatnerology.com/index.html

[frau kaleun]

I also do the same as you, but I pay homage to all my gods.

Never meant to imply that I didn't. :D

To me it is really all a matter of trying to be more conscious than less so, of recognizing that my self is far bigger than my ego, that nothing human is alien to it, and that to deny this is the worst form of hubris. Of not pushing into shadow and denying those possibilities and proclivities I would prefer not to acknowledge as part and parcel of who I could be or might have been, because I know all too well that the beast you befriend is a powerful ally, while the one you drive from your midst will someday return to burn your village.

wait, what do you believe in frau?

I think people believe what they need to believe, and I'm no different. In most cases the need is unconscious, because most of what we are and what motivates us is unconscious. What we don't know is always far greater than what we do know, and this includes what we know about ourselves.

For instance, IMO people believe in God or a god or gods or whatever, because something inside them requires the existence of whatever it is they believe in. And naturally they are attracted to whatever validates and supports that belief. Why do they need to believe it? I suppose everybody needs to believe in something, and "I'll have another cookie" isn't enough for everyone.

(I choose to believe in the Loch Ness Monster because it amuses me to do so. Why does it amuse me? Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect it's because a world where prehistoric aquatic critters are not still lurking about in Scotland would seem just a little less fun to live in.)

This is why I think it's so important not only to question what we believe, but WHY we believe it. If it is something we have not learned from our own experience, or have no empirical evidence for, why do we continue to believe it? What need does it fulfill, what behavior does it justify, what potential reality does it shield us from facing? If it is something that can be neither proved or disproved, why do we opt to believe or disbelieve, and based on what criteria?

There are many things which I see become issues of contention among others, in which I neither believe or disbelieve because to me it makes no difference one way or the other.

And there is a difference to believing and knowing. I do not "believe" that hot oil will burn if it splatters on my skin. I know that it will, because it has happened and I have experienced the results.

OTOH, someone else might say, I got hot oil on my skin and it didn't burn at all. Well, then what I know to be true for me is not true for them. Fair enough. But I will not pour hot oil on my hands based on their experience, nor will I pour hot oil on them to try and prove them wrong. If, however, they start going around pouring hot oil on other people, we are going to have a problem, no matter how much they try to justify it by saying that what is true for them must also be true for everybody else.

Have I had religious experiences? Absolutely, yes. Have I "seen" things that can only be seen with the heart, and never with the eyes? Oh yes. Were they hallucinations, or real? Well of course they were real. Even a hallucination is real. A dream is real. The experience of having one or the other is most definitely real. What matters to me is: did it produce anything of value? Am I happier, more content, more at peace with myself and others, more patient, less fearful? Oh yes.

I think frau has belief of the silent and deep kind

I don't think I've found God, but I may have seen where gods come from. - Terry Pratchett

Silent running .
Deep water.

Well, it's definitely deep something. :yeah:

[Ducimus]

Religion is a lot like a pair of shoes. Find one that fits you, and if it makes you feel great, that's fantastic. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes.

My 2 cents and a psuedo quote from one of my favorite comedians :O:

[frau kaleun]

"You see how picky I am about my shoes, and they only go on my feet!"- Cher, Clueless

[frau kaleun]

http://www.shatnerology.com/index.html

:haha:

[ryanglavin]

"You see how picky I am about my shoes, and they only go on my feet!"- Cher, Clueless

Well I'm just quoting this one, because I don't want to quote the longer one, but, your pretty deep frau.
And I don't shove religion down anyones throat, because my religion isn't really accepted as "status quo", if you could say that. By my own estimates, I only expect at most 20,000 other people to even have similar beliefs of mine (Similar as in the greek gods)

[August]

I got hot oil on my skin and it didn't burn at all. Well, then what I know to be true for me is not true for them. Fair enough. But I will not pour hot oil on my hands based on their experience, nor will I pour hot oil on them to try and prove them wrong. If, however, they start going around pouring hot oil on other people, we are going to have a problem, no matter how much they try to justify it by saying that what is true for them must also be true for everybody else.

I read this and just couldn't help thinking that there are people who would pay good money to see that... :D


I am so going to hell...

[frau kaleun]

Well I'm just quoting this one, because I don't want to quote the longer one, but, your pretty deep frau.
And I don't shove religion down anyones throat, because my religion isn't really accepted as "status quo", if you could say that. By my own estimates, I only expect at most 20,000 other people to even have similar beliefs of mine (Similar as in the greek gods)

I guess if I really thought about it, I'd have to say I have very few "beliefs." At least not in the context we're talking about. I have things that I know to be true, for myself, because of what I've experienced and I've seen the results. But even these are things I can't necessarily "prove" in any empirical sense, and that's okay. I work with what I've got at any given moment. The important thing is not to be so attached to it that I'm no longer open to anything different, or dependent on the unconditional agreement of others for validation of it.

[WarlordATF]

Being open to other ideas is important. What i was trying to say in my first post in this thread is to each his/her own. I have my beliefs and they have served me well over the years, but i would never want my opinions to apply to everyone.

The problem with organized religion IMO is that it is not open to others beliefs. If asked i will share my feelings, but i don't look down on anyone who believes differently and sadly that is what alot of religions preach. I never bought into the idea that if you don't fall in line with the church you will burn in hell forever. It should be something you feel within yourself and not something used to control others. It should bring an inner peace and joy not fear and condemnation of others.

I'm no saint and i won't spend time reading the Bible or going to Church, I just believe and try to be a good person and help others whenever i can. To me that is how it should be, but the Church would argue otherwise. Its a shame but many Religions focus too much on telling people they have to live a certain way or they will suffer. To me thats not religion, thats control.

Also i don't try to convert others, I will share my thoughts but i don't think less of anyone if they disagree. Who am i to judge anyone? Do i know beyond all doubt i am right? Of course not, none of us knows for sure. Atheists have every right to believe whatever they want and i completely support that. What i do have an issue with is when they tell me i don't have the right to speak of my beliefs. To me thats no better than the Church saying if i don't agree with them i'll burn in hell.

[Tribesman]

I don't think I've found God, but I may have seen where gods come from. - Terry Pratchett

I gave his Small Gods book to a Jehova who was heading off to New Guinea as a missionary, I hope he found it better reading than Watchtower.

[The Third Man]

Funny thing about religion. It is just an 'R' word for belief.

Some folks believe in science, the 'S' word, some believe in people, the 'P' word, Some in UFOs, the 'U' word, etc, etc. At some level everyone believes in something, even if it is themself.

OK, Is any one belief system worse than any other so long as it hurts no one else? I think not? To limit one belief system limits all belief systems, or at the very least, holds other belief systems up to question.

If it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket, I prefer to leave it alone.

[Morts]

Some folks believe in science, the 'S' word.
Science is not a belief.

[The Third Man]

Science is not a belief.

Of course it is. It has its own dogma, as limited as it may be, its called the 'scientific method'.

Yep, yep, yes! There is even a term for those who do not believe...Anti-Scientism .



essential elements/holy eight



Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

[Morts]

Of course it is. It has its own dogma, as limited as it may be, its called the 'scientific method'.

Yep, yep, yes! There is even a term for those who do not believe...Anti-Scientism .



essential elements/holy eight




Define the question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)




you just proved why it isnt a belief:yeah:

[Sammi79]

OK, Is any one belief system worse than any other so long as it hurts no one else? I think not? To limit one belief system limits all belief systems, or at the very least, holds other belief systems up to question.

To believe the world is round is better than to believe it is flat because it is closer to the truth as far as we can tell. Certain navigational calculations would not work if the world was flat.

To believe in the theory of evolution is better than to believe in creationism, because it is much closer to the truth as far as we can tell. At least there is evidence to support it, as opposed to 0 evidence in support of any religious description of how life came to be in its present state.

To believe in science is better than to believe in religion because science encourages asking questions, and setting hypotheses, which are then tested with the intention of proving/disproving them. When the results are known, your mind is changeable to the closest approximation of truth regarding these results. Religion asks you shut your eyes and don't ask questions. 'If' God is real, who created God?

Science itself would happily support belief in a God were there any evidence to support a Gods existence. To suggest that people who have belief in science are narrow minded compared to people who believe religious explanations of life the universe and everything is quite frankly insulting. Science has never claimed that god does not exist. It has only at best stated that in view of all currently gathered evidence the idea of a God is extremely unlikely. Would religion concede in the face of evidence that proved the non-existence of a 'God'? I think not. There is a reason that the legal system is based on factual truth, evidence and proof. The reason is, this is the best way to determine the TRUTH. Back in the dark ages, courts were religion based, and they basically used to murder people being tried as a test of their innocence. If you survived you were guilty so you would be executed painfully. If you died then 'God' had had mercy and taken you to heaven. :doh:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Well put Sam :yeah:

[AngusJS]

Secular Humanism (100%)
Non-theist (83%)
Unitarian Universalism (77%)
Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (65%)
Theravada Buddhism (58%)
Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (48%)
Neo-Pagan (44%)
Reform Judaism (36%)
New Age (34%)
Taoism (32%)

I think non-theism wasn't my top result because I couldn't resist answering the contemporary issue questions, when in fact my (lack of) belief system should have nothing to say regarding those issues at all.

[ryanglavin]

I guess if I really thought about it, I'd have to say I have very few "beliefs." At least not in the context we're talking about. I have things that I know to be true, for myself, because of what I've experienced and I've seen the results. But even these are things I can't necessarily "prove" in any empirical sense, and that's okay. I work with what I've got at any given moment. The important thing is not to be so attached to it that I'm no longer open to anything different, or dependent on the unconditional agreement of others for validation of it.

Heh I know what you mean... My girl is still trying to convert me to Christianity.. Its not my cup of tea, I guess.
Or coffee, hail coffee!

And another question: Does anyone know the current amount of Atheists and Religious Peoples on Earth?

[Dowly]

And another question: Does anyone know the current amount of Atheists and Religious Peoples on Earth?

Heh, think that's impossible to know. :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

Heh, think that's impossible to know. :DL

Yes. Attaining the numbers of true adherentes to any faith, or lack thereof, is impossible. I never put much trust into those statistics. I sit next to people in the pews who I know do not adhere to the faith. I also know professed atheists who adhere to various religious principles.

[Jimbuna]

And another question: Does anyone know the current amount of Atheists and Religious Peoples on Earth?

To how many decimal places? :hmmm:

:DL

[Herr-Berbunch]

To how many decimal places? :hmmm:

:DL

Jim, is there anything you don't know? :hmmm:

[August]

Would religion concede in the face of evidence that proved the non-existence of a 'God'? I think not.

I think you're wrong. Any religion would fall apart if the practitioners come to believe that the deity they worship doesn't exist.

[Sailor Steve]

I think you're wrong. Any religion would fall apart if the practitioners come to believe that the deity they worship doesn't exist.
I disagree, but only about the nature of the question versus your answer. Your observation is true if they "came to believe" that their deity didn't exist. Sammi79's question seems to me to be asking whether most believers would "come to belive" the nonexistence if proof could indeed be shown. I see these as two different things entirely.

I fit your category of one who "came to believe" in the non-existence of God, though "doubt" is the better word for me than "belief".

On the other hand, a great majority of believers have such great faith that even if some proof could be established, their reaction would be to not accept it and try to disprove it.

[The Third Man]

I
On the other hand, a great majority of believers have such great faith that even if some proof could be established, their reaction would be to not accept it and try to disprove it.


How did this turn into a discussion about Obama? :woot::D

Couldn't resist. Back to the original topic.

[August]

I disagree, but only about the nature of the question versus your answer. Your observation is true if they "came to believe" that their deity didn't exist. Sammi79's question seems to me to be asking whether most believers would "come to belive" the nonexistence if proof could indeed be shown. I see these as two different things entirely.

I fit your category of one who "came to believe" in the non-existence of God, though "doubt" is the better word for me than "belief".

On the other hand, a great majority of believers have such great faith that even if some proof could be established, their reaction would be to not accept it and try to disprove it.

As would anyone when it comes to their long held and cherished beliefs. Imo it should be difficult to change those.

But "proof" means many things to many people. One person might point to, say a dinosaur fossil, as "proof" that the Bible is wrong about evolution and therefore that God does not exist.

I look at Bibles story of creation, indeed organized Religion itself, as an attempt to explain a concept that is way too advanced for most people to fully understand, especially during the age it was written. It's like how a child might be told that the stork brought their new baby sibling instead of getting into all the mechanics of conception and pregnancy which are too advanced for them to understand at their age.

[Sailor Steve]

But "proof" means many things to many people. One person might point to, say a dinosaur fossil, as "proof" that the Bible is wrong about evolution and therefore that God does not exist.

Good point. Even science has its devout faithful. As there are atheists who also act like true believers.

[August]

Good point. Even science has its devout faithful. As there are atheists who also act like true believers.

Yep and some of them display an intolerance akin to the worst religious inquisitor who ever put The Question to a heretic.

[The Third Man]

Good point. Even science has its devout faithful. As there are atheists who also act like true believers.

That was my point in post #140.

[Ducimus]

Would religion concede in the face of evidence that proved the non-existence of a 'God'? I think not.
I think you're wrong. Any religion would fall apart if the practitioners come to believe that the deity they worship doesn't exist.

Personally, i think that if there is no god, I would NOT want it to be proven. The reason is, there are many weak willed people. I do not think people are naturally good. For many folks out there, fear of damnation and punishment are the only thing that keeps them in line. Part of society would fall apart in anarchy. Truth or fiction, I think religion does play an important part in society by keeping weak willed people in check. Not everyone needs a crutch, but many do.

Edit: thats not to say the all devoted to a religion are weak willed. But there are many people out there, that the only thing that keeps them from engaging in theivery, rape, murder and the like, is fear of damnation.

[The Third Man]

Yep and some of them display an intolerance akin to the worst religious inquisitor who ever put The Question to a heretic.

And unlike god's believers, they are supported financially and politically by government.

[Sailor Steve]

That was my point in post #140.
Your point seemed to be that the scientific method is a 'dogma', when in fact you can't have science or any other kind of learning without established rules.

I compared 'some' atheists with 'most' religious fanatics. You compared science with religion, and there is no comparison.

[The Third Man]

Your point seemed to be that the scientific method is a 'dogma', when in fact you can't have science or any other kind of learning without established rules.

I compared 'some' atheists with 'most' religious fanatics. You compared science with religion, and there is no comparison.

The climate change fiasco should allow you, a thinker, to come to another conclusion regarding science visa vis religion. They are far more similar than not.

[Sailor Steve]

The climate change fiasco should allow you, a thinker, to come to another conclusion regarding science visa vis religion. They are far more similar than not.
You need to explain more deeply. Science can only look at facts and attempt to explain. Any scientist worth his salt knows that today's pet theory may be tomorrow's best joke. If that happens, any good scientist looks at the new evidence and starts over again, trying to put the pieces together.

With religion it's just the opposite. You start with a "Holy Scripture" which by its very nature cannot be proven or disproven, and then attempt to come up with facts that agree with your ideas.

The fact that there are some people who think that way about scientific theories reflects on them, not on the nature of science itself, and they are in the minority. The Scientific Method, which you call 'Dogma' in an attempt to equate it with religion, simply requires that everything be tested and tested again, and that nothing be believed until the facts are all in. The fact that the facts are never all in is something that scientists have to live with.

Faith, on the other hand, relies on the absence of facts, and requires believers to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Any scientist who acts like a believer runs the risk of not being a scientist for long, and most know it. Any believer who acts like a scientist runs the risk of not being a believer for long, and most are afraid of it.

[Jimbuna]

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.
-- Peter OToole

[Takeda Shingen]

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.
-- Peter OToole

:rotfl2: One of my favorites.

[The Third Man]

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself.
-- Peter OToole

With so many god's it is a wonder humans exist at all.

[frau kaleun]

With so many god's it is a wonder humans exist at all.

With so many humans, it's a wonder there aren't more gods.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Noticed there were no Secular Godists around... :hmmm:

[The Third Man]

With so many humans, it's a wonder there aren't more gods.

The flocking instinct may explain that. Germans flocked to a man in the 1930's '40's.

Yep, I think the Germans haven't paid enough for the deaths of my people.

[August]

Yep, I think the Germans haven't paid enough for the deaths of my people.

The Germans owe you absolutely nothing.

[frau kaleun]

The flocking instinct may explain that. Germans flocked to a man in the 1930's '40's.

Yep, I think the Germans haven't paid enough for the deaths of my people.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. :hmmm:

[The Third Man]

The Germans owe you absolutely nothing.

You can only imagine how much they owe. 13 million people.

Can they not pay with the same lives they have taken?


Bombs of nuclear nature on Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich should level the cost.

[frau kaleun]

You can only imagine how much they owe. 13 million people.

Can they not pay with the same lives they have taken?

And who should pay? The millions of Germans who were not even born then, or were two young to have had any part in it? They are not responsible and owe nothing on that account.

In fact modern post-war Germany has gone to great lengths to make sure the ideology that was responsible remains a thing of the past in their nation - not to be forgotten and never to be tolerated in the future.

[August]

You can only imagine how much they owe. 13 million people.

Can they not pay with the same lives they have taken?


Bombs of nuclear nature on Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich should level the cost.

Well isn't that just a lovely sentiment.

[The Third Man]

And who should pay? The millions of Germans who were not even born then, or were two young to have had any part in it? They are not responsible and owe nothing on that account.


The Germans didn't have any particular discrimination. Why should we?

Many Germans want to make the earth more balanced, population wise. This is their opportunity to not only pay for their misdeeds, but also sacrifice for the future. A more selfless futre I cannot imagine.

[frau kaleun]

By that logic there is no people on earth that should not accept voluntary annihilation in atonement for the sins their ancestors committed.

But of course, that's not what you're suggesting, which is the widespread and deliberate slaughter of innocents to settle what you seem to consider a personal grievance. :nope:

[The Third Man]

By that logic there is no people on earth that should not accept voluntary annihilation in atonement for the sins their ancestors committed.

But of course, that's not what you're suggesting, which is the widespread and deliberate slaughter of innocents to settle what you seem to consider a personal grievance. :nope:

Problem? Not personal, more genetic. Germans tried to destroy my people. Now destroy the Germans.

These people have never suffered the punishment for their crimes.

[UnderseaLcpl]

WTF?:06:

[Onkel Neal]

Problem? Not personal, more genetic. Germans tried to destroy my people. Now destroy the Germans.

These people have never suffered the punishment for their crimes.


Erm, you've been a member of this forum for exactly 3 weeks, you want to cool your jets on the hate speech?

[Ducimus]

Jebus H christ, talk about someone taking a long walk off a short pier. How's this go from religion to.. whatever the hell that was?

[krashkart]

Problem? Not personal, more genetic. Germans tried to destroy my people. Now destroy the Germans.

These people have never suffered the punishment for their crimes.

Ah, the answer to genocide is more genocide. Which will lead to someone hating your descendants enough that they too will be buried in mass graves for what you did before they were even born. Didn't think that far ahead, did ya? :DL

[Skybird]

Problem? Not personal, more genetic. Germans tried to destroy my people. Now destroy the Germans.

These people have never suffered the punishment for their crimes.
I am German. My mother was born three years after the end of the war. My father was a baby 1 year old at the end of the war. his family was driven out of the Sudetenland, they ran into a russian patrol (right, those Russians who suffered 24 million dead), and the only reason why the patrol leader did not obey his orders and shot them all was that he was not able to kill that baby and his parents. That way, my father, 1 year old, saved them all - by appealing to the good heart of a Russian who maybe had suffered losses himself before, and if not then at least had seen plenty of misery and brutality himself.

So, what exactly have we done to you, in what way are we guilty, what do we owe to you and what would you like to do with me if you could get a grab on me? And my genes - what is wrong with my genes...?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ah, the answer to genocide is more genocide. Which will lead to someone hating your descendants enough that they too will be buried in mass graves for what you did before they were even born. Didn't think that far ahead, did ya? :DL

What on God's green earth makes you think thought had anything to do with..... whatever that was?

[frau kaleun]

What on God's green earth makes you think thought had anything to do with..... whatever that was?

Krashkart has a kind and generous nature.

Aside from that, I got nothin.'

[The Third Man]

I am German. My mother was born three years after the end of the war. My father was a baby 1 year old at the end of the war. his family was driven out of the Sudetenland, they ran into a russian patrol (right, those Russians who suffered 24 million dead), and the only reason why the patrol leader did not obey his orders and shot them all was that he was not able to kill that baby and his parents. That way, my father, 1 year old, saved them all - by appealing to the good heart of a Russian who maybe had suffered losses himself before, and if not then at least had seen plenty of misery and brutality himself.

So, what exactly have we done to you, in what way are we guilty, what do we owe to you and what would you like to do with me if you could get a grab on me? And my genes - what is wrong with my genes...?

Pay tribute/money to all the stolen lives. Is that fair? Or give your life. You may not have been there but your culture is responsible for the deaths of many nillions. The German people can never be recomspense without the deaths of some 13 million persons.

[UnderseaLcpl]

This can't be real. It's some kind of trick.

[Ducimus]

You strike me as a person so consumed by hatred, you've become that which you loath. Pity your probably incapable of looking into the mirror and seeing yourself as others do now after the crap you've spewed. It's really out there. Far far out there. Too much time isolated at home on the computer is a bad thing. Turn that puppy off, and rejoin the real world sometime soon.

edit:
This can't be real. It's some kind of trick.

One could hope.

[The Third Man]

You strike me as a person so consumed by hatred, you've become that which you loath. Pity your probably incapable of looking into the mirror and seeing yourself as others do now after the crap you've spewed. It's really out there. Far far out there. Too much time isolated at home on the computer is a bad thing. Turn that puppy off, and rejoin the real world sometime soon.

edit:


One could hope.

And last week you accused me of being a spy. Perhaps you just don't like the truth.

[cheese123]

Fear leads to anger,anger leads to hate,hate leads to suffering,suffering leads to the Dark Side

[The Third Man]

Fear leads to anger,anger leads to hate,hate leads to suffering,suffering leads to the Dark Side

Thank you Yodda, where would we be without your wisdom?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oh, wait, I get it now.

[Skybird]

Pay tribute/money to all the stolen lives. Is that fair? Or give your life. You may not have been there but your culture is responsible for the deaths of many nillions. The German people can never be recomspense without the deaths of some 13 million persons.


Special delivery for you.

http://de.toonpool.com/user/100/files/_125235.jpg

Done with you, too. Ignore lists are great to sort out what is not worth the time.

[Ducimus]

Oh, wait, I get it now.
What is there to get? He's either the ultimate troll, or he's a bat**** crazy troglodyte.

[The Third Man]

Special delivery for you.


Done with you, too.

Are you a German who won't take responsibility for your peoples actions? Under my idea move to east prussia. it will save you ............. for the moment.

It is the terror you placed upon people. Germans.

[Takeda Shingen]

http://www.zoneshot.com/server/dg/facepalm.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

What is there to get? He's either the ultimate troll, or he's a bat**** crazy troglodyte.

That's what's to get. He wants to be seen that way for some reason. The only question is why.

Now think about it. He's a new guy, so he doesn't have much to lose by getting banned, but he has nothing to gain by posting this vitriol because any reasonable person beyond the age of 8 would know that it would generate a backlash against them. So what does he have to gain by that?

My guess is that he wants to be associated with some group he actually hates, so the rest of us will equate them with him. At this point, my guess is it's either Jews or whomever is aligned with his political views in the past.

[The Third Man]

There are so many people on many boards who wish to exempt the German people for their acts of genocide. The German law against displaying NAZI symbols or beliefs, only shows how much the Germans are very willing to kill those they consider not them, but isn't real.


Watch the Germans. The islams have nothing on them.

[The Third Man]

That's what's to get. He wants to be seen that way for some reason. The only question is why.

Now think about it. He's a new guy, so he doesn't have much to lose by getting banned, but he has nothing to gain by posting this vitriol because any reasonable person beyond the age of 8 would know that it would generate a backlash against them. So what does he have to gain by that?

My guess is that he wants to be associated with some group he actually hates, so the rest of us will equate them with him. At this point, my guess is it's either Jews or whomever is aligned with his political views in the past.

Over think everything? Or he is very much connected and wants to infect Subsim with non-info to help the enemy recognize the false informatiomn.

Or is me just a guy who wants to know some info.

No that couldn't be it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Or is me just a guy who wants to know some info.
Does this strike anyone else as the behaviour of someone who wants some info? Does it even strike someone as being the behaviour of the most vindictive person you've ever met?

No that couldn't be it.

Oh... it was an inadvertent rhetorical question.:oops:

[frau kaleun]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4889548672_a01b34978d.jpg

[August]

Does this strike anyone else as the behaviour of someone who wants some info? Does it even strike someone as being the behaviour of the most vindictive person you've ever met?

He strikes me as your typical internet troll who needs to say stupid and shocking things to anonymous strangers in a vain attempt to make himself relevant, even if it's just as an object of their derision.

We've got a couple more like that around here although they do tend to be far less clumsy about it than this one. :yep:

[UnderseaLcpl]

He strikes me as your typical internet troll who needs to say stupid and shocking things to anonymous strangers in a vain attempt to make himself relevant, even if it's just as an object of their derision.

We've got a couple more like that around here although they do tend to be far less clumsy about it than this one. :yep:

I know, but he's violating the "language stupidity threshold"; the point at which an action is so stupid that it cannot be reconciled with the intellect of a person capable of communicating the idea. Even if all he wanted to do was gain attention by becoming an object of derision, he's likely to be brigged or keelhauled for trolling, so the action is counterproductive. In short, I refuse to believe that a person can purposely be that stupid, and I know a thing or two about being stupid.

[The Third Man]

you are all too good for me and my little voice. sorry if what I have said was offensive. i can only write what i believe.

[krashkart]

Well, we're open to discussion about many things here but it's hard to take opinions like that with a grain of salt, Third Man. From my own experience, expressing oneself in those terms has a way of turning people off real quick. Don't be so surprised by the cold reception you got. I would expect the same treatment if I went off the rails like that.

Moving right along...

[Sammi79]

The climate change fiasco should allow you, a thinker, to come to another conclusion regarding science visa vis religion. They are far more similar than not.

I have to debate this. Science has no similarity with religion, I challenge you to point out exactly what is so similar about them in your opinion, Third Man. Science is not a 'Belief Structure' as religion is. Science accepts that whatever little it claims to know with a measure of certainty may be proved wrong in some future moment. Science is purely a method of determining truth to the highest possible level of accuracy through the testing of hypotheses, and the recording and analysis of data - EVIDENCE. Also it's benefit to you, me, and human kind in general is immeasurable not to mention obvious.

Atheism could be considered a belief structure, similar to religion in that it is a personal choice to believe certain explanations about life, the universe and everything. The fact that atheists would more likely choose scientific explanations over mythological or fantastical ones only points to a more realistic, more open minded, more contemporary viewpoint about life in general. :yep:

Religious belief is a belief structure in which untruth is a fundamental necessity. You can say it should be viewed metaphorically which means it depends on personal interpretation. The holy books themselves do contain some moral truths which can be valuable lessons for anyone. I believe August said in a previous post 'to try and explain a concept that is way too advanced for them to comprehend at their present level of development' I agree I just think it's about time people grew up a bit. Moral development does not exclusively come from religious involvment. There is a view that without good ol' organised religion, that people would rape, murder and steal themselves into anarchy. If that is truly the case, why is god(fearing) not stopping them now?

[August]

If that is truly the case, why is god(fearing) not stopping them now?

Oh but it is stopping many of them. The disparity comes from the fact that not everyone is religious but more importantly many of those who claim to be religious are not in practice.

Besides I wasn't just talking about a moral code to follow. Religion is about way more than that.

[NeonSamurai]

Oh but it is stopping many of them. The disparity comes from the fact that not everyone is religious but more importantly many of those who claim to be religious are not in practice.

Besides I wasn't just talking about a moral code to follow. Religion is about way more than that.

Of course theoretically the criminal justice system does that too, and is far more certain as to punishment. I think more people do not commit crimes not because they are afraid god will punish them, but because of fear of real world punishment. I could also go into the theories of social conformity and why people tend to conform to group norms, but I'll save that for another time.


The Third Man, I suggest you behave yourself and stop with the childish attempts at shocking others with your 'extreme' opinions. Your on the gangplank to getting keelhauled, and not impressing anyone.

[frau kaleun]

Religious belief is a belief structure in which untruth is a fundamental necessity. You can say it should be viewed metaphorically which means it depends on personal interpretation.

A very important point to make and understand.

A metaphor has nothing to do with literal truth. The conflict between science and religion comes into play when the metaphorical truth of any religion's teaching is considered by believers to be literally true when there is either no evidence that it can be, or an abundance evidence that it cannot.

This is why Joseph Campbell once said that all myths are true for their time. IMO some of them are true for all time, because they attempt to illustrate or express some fundamental bit of human experience or understanding that cannot be expressed as well or as powerfully in any other way. Whether or not they are literally true is irrelevant if you're not hung up on the idea that they must be so in order to have any merit.

[Skybird]

IMO some of them are true for all time, because they attempt to illustrate or express some fundamental bit of human experience or understanding that cannot be expressed as well or as powerfully in any other way.
In a strict sense, this still does not make them "true for all time".

I understand what you mean, but let's leave absolute statements out of all this. If mythology would be like science, then one could compare that true-for-all-times-myth to a paradigm in science, which could be seen as a "meta-theory", a habit of how to think of lower, subordinate theories (and how to form them), that usually has a longer lifetime than the normal scientific theories of "every-day-science". But even these paradigms change over times, or more often: they get replaced. Just imagine that myth-building often depends on attempts to make sense of observations of natural phenomenons, from weather to stars in the sky. But our understanding of these phenomenons has changed over time, and sometimes the phenomenon itself has changed, too (star constellations forming today's zodiac constellations for example looked very different from Earth some thousand years ago, there were times when people thought very different stories in what we call astrology today, because they indeed saw different things in the nightly sky, and thus they probably have told very different stories than those revolving around today's zodiac constalltions. Not to mention that these constellations are just arbitrary creations of our imagination, and have no reality in themselves).

[frau kaleun]

In a strict sense, this still does not make them "true for all time".

Where myths deal with cosmology and our understanding of the natural world, this is of course true.

But I think the notion holds up when it comes to the inner world of human nature, consciousness, and experience. Some metaphors continue to resonate over the centuries because they speak to things that are still part and parcel of the human experience.