icirate said: ixra said: Yeah, and the unfortunate part is that it's annoying af but not threatening enough for me to give natural selection a hand. It's not like I'm saying to kill all the infidels, but that's what you find unfortunate? I find it unfortunate that the desire to push your religion on others isn't necessary a bad trait for survival, perhaps sometimes even the opposite. |
 |
ZA_WAYD said: Olwen said: This is coming from the tool who I gave, hundreds of times, logical proofs that God doesn't exist. Ignored. so far up your own ass to admit that your reasoning is like 1+1=2 which is hardly anything that can be used to disclaim any notion of GOD. EDIT: this is the reasoning of a child btw. Reasoning of a child huh? Then why have there been at least 670 papers published on this topic by professional philosophers by PhDs? http://philpapers.org/browse/the-argument-from-evil Who should I listen to, professional philosophers who spend their lives and careers working on this sort of stuff or someone on the internet called ZA_WAYD who can barely type a legitimate sentence? What do you think? katsucats said: If A is true in an empty set, it is false. ??? What do you mean? assuming that A is true and proving that its NOT in ALL cases => that A is FALSE. This is actually correct. What are you objecting to? |
katsucats said: RedRoseFring said: Ignorance in this instance implies atheist agnosticism. Social creatures existed far before religion did. Religion was not necessary in their formation.Wrong. Ignorance is the default when you are born because you know nothing at all. [citation needed] And ignorance in this case is just simply ignorance. No baby is born with any sort of innate knowledge. Yet to see any proof that the first humans did not have any sort of religion. If anything, what is difficult to find is the point in time when atheism started to register on any scale. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: No citation is needed but a dictionary. Atheist agnosticism is literally the lack of a belief of knowledge in God, leaning towards a a belief lacking God--a newborn does not have that concept of God in its lexicon. It is not born "knowing" God or anything else (otherwise it wouldn't need to be baptized).katsucats said: [citation needed]Ignorance in this instance implies atheist agnosticism. Social creatures existed far before religion did. Religion was not necessary in their formation. And ignorance in this case is just simply ignorance. No baby is born with any sort of innate knowledge. Yet to see any proof that the first humans did not have any sort of religion. If anything, what is difficult to find is the point in time when atheism started to register on any scale. We can observe that modern day apes, which share the same ancestry as humans, have no religion (both are social animals). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: No citation is needed but a dictionary. Atheist agnosticism is literally the lack of a belief of knowledge in God, leaning towards a a belief lacking God--a newborn does not have that concept of God in its lexicon. It is not born "knowing" God or anything else (otherwise it wouldn't need to be baptized). We can observe that modern day apes, which share the same ancestry as humans, have no religion (both are social animals). So....your argument boils down to "apes don't have one, and they are related to humans." I wonder what the variable to be taken into consideration is then, the thing they share (social animals) or the difference (mental capacity). By that argument, religion is something that by necessity arises with increased intellectual capacity because it is only found in humans, not apes, and no human society has been found without it. The fact that almost every single culture on the planet had their own form of religion also debunks that people are born leaning towards a belief lacking God. That just proves the opposite. Even barring that, you are only left with agnosticism which is simply lack of knowledge which is essentially ignorance in this case because the baby isn't even aware that it is lacking knowledge of something. In the end, it's a pointless argument either way unless you are saying that that ignorant stage is something to be admired, and that any knowledge acquired is a bad thing. Edit: Going back to read the comments, you brought up 'social creatures' which is kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand since we were talking solely about humans. |
RedRoseFringJul 4, 2015 12:10 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| The fact that almost every single culture on the planet had their own form of religion also debunks that people are born leaning towards a belief lacking God. That just proves the opposite. Even barring that, you are only left with agnosticism which is simply lack of knowledge which is essentially ignorance in this case because the baby isn't even aware that it is lacking knowledge of something. In the end, it's a pointless argument either way unless you are saying that that ignorant stage is something to be admired, and that any knowledge acquired is a bad thing. Edit: Going back to read the comments, you brought up 'social creatures' which is kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand since we were talking solely about humans. [/quote] Mainly before during the dark ages it was kind of mandatory to follow in your parents religion as it is now on most areas but slowly people are just becoming agnostic more than identifying themselves with a specific religion.Also because its much easier back then to create a God figure as a sense of belonging and answering fundamental questions we still think about today. The belief in a higher entity is inevitable for that era but their base rules and claims are different from what everyone grows up to universally understand morals and scientific laws etc. The fact that no new influential religion has been established (Scientology is crazy)now means a new era is coming. People of this era are more educated through the internet and general sciences to make a more fair viewpoint in terms of developed countries. Current day religions are no different from religions past they will rise and fall but science will continue to impact reality and evolve for good or bad. |
DezraJul 4, 2015 12:29 PM
RedRoseFring said: I think what necessarily arises must be qualified. An argument could be made that intelligence is required to conceive of abstract ideas, such as life after death, or God; therefore, religion is correlated with a certain level of intelligence. But this is not the same as saying religion necessarily arises whenever a certain level of intelligence exists, or that intelligence requires religion (which is a reverse of cause and effect).katsucats said: So....your argument boils down to "apes don't have one, and they are related to humans." No citation is needed but a dictionary. Atheist agnosticism is literally the lack of a belief of knowledge in God, leaning towards a a belief lacking God--a newborn does not have that concept of God in its lexicon. It is not born "knowing" God or anything else (otherwise it wouldn't need to be baptized). We can observe that modern day apes, which share the same ancestry as humans, have no religion (both are social animals). I wonder what the variable to be taken into consideration is then, the thing they share (social animals) or the difference (mental capacity). By that argument, religion is something that by necessity arises with increased intellectual capacity because it is only found in humans, not apes, and no human society has been found without it. RedRoseFring said: It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Culture is defined by contributing members to society, not newborns, and newborns are not contributing members.The fact that almost every single culture on the planet had their own form of religion also debunks that people are born leaning towards a belief lacking God. That just proves the opposite. RedRoseFring said: I'll take the agnosticism then.Even barring that, you are only left with agnosticism which is simply lack of knowledge which is essentially ignorance in this case because the baby isn't even aware that it is lacking knowledge of something. RedRoseFring said: You are conflating a description that newborns are agnostic because they are ignorant, with that agnosticism is something to be admired; and even worse, that ignorance is something to be admired. This is like if someone said, "That black computer is fast", and you come to the conclusion that blackness is to admired as opposed to fast, or just that it's a descriptive factual statement.In the end, it's a pointless argument either way unless you are saying that that ignorant stage is something to be admired, and that any knowledge acquired is a bad thing. RedRoseFring said: Most people would agree that social creatures have an understanding of empathy and probably social morals (depending on how you define morals). That social creatures exist without religion proves that societies don't devolve into chaotic Hobbesian nightmares without religion.Edit: Going back to read the comments, you brought up 'social creatures' which is kinda irrelevant to the topic at hand since we were talking solely about humans. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RedRoseFring said: No citation is needed but a dictionary. Atheist agnosticism is literally the lack of a belief of knowledge in God, leaning towards a a belief lacking God--a newborn does not have that concept of God in its lexicon. It is not born "knowing" God or anything else (otherwise it wouldn't need to be baptized).[citation needed] And ignorance in this case is just simply ignorance. No baby is born with any sort of innate knowledge. Yet to see any proof that the first humans did not have any sort of religion. If anything, what is difficult to find is the point in time when atheism started to register on any scale. We can observe that modern day apes, which share the same ancestry as humans, have no religion (both are social animals). I don't think your argument right now is as bad as usual, but this is most likely wrong, and I'm embarrassed to say that this joke, RedRoseFring, is probably right. People very very likely have a biological inclination towards being religious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion |
Olwen said: This hardly contradicts what I wrote. As usual, your criticism is irrelevant.katsucats said: No citation is needed but a dictionary. Atheist agnosticism is literally the lack of a belief of knowledge in God, leaning towards a a belief lacking God--a newborn does not have that concept of God in its lexicon. It is not born "knowing" God or anything else (otherwise it wouldn't need to be baptized). We can observe that modern day apes, which share the same ancestry as humans, have no religion (both are social animals). I don't think your argument right now is as bad as usual, but this is most likely wrong, and I'm embarrassed to say that this joke, RedRoseFring, is probably right. People very very likely have a biological inclination towards being religious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Olwen said: This hardly contradicts what I wrote. As usual, your criticism is irrelevant.I don't think your argument right now is as bad as usual, but this is most likely wrong, and I'm embarrassed to say that this joke, RedRoseFring, is probably right. People very very likely have a biological inclination towards being religious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion Yes, it does. Evolutionary biologists believe that people are born with religious knowledge. Thus, it's very likely that the first people in the world were religious, which is what you were arguing against. |
Olwen said: katsucats said: No citation is needed but a dictionary. Atheist agnosticism is literally the lack of a belief of knowledge in God, leaning towards a a belief lacking God--a newborn does not have that concept of God in its lexicon. It is not born "knowing" God or anything else (otherwise it wouldn't need to be baptized). We can observe that modern day apes, which share the same ancestry as humans, have no religion (both are social animals). I don't think your argument right now is as bad as usual, but this is most likely wrong, and I'm embarrassed to say that this joke, RedRoseFring, is probably right. People very very likely have a biological inclination towards being religious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion Using early explanations of how thunder and earthquakes happen by a greater being is understandable in that era and for their survival and adaption and gradually no one challenged the idea. But if that's to say humans naturally create religions then the truth itself is flawed for this concept with its rules created not by an outside greater being but by the minds of humans. If God has planted a gene in our make up and expects us to create the perfect teachings then something went terribly wrong if no religion can accept each other as truth. |
Olwen said: No, evolutionary psychologists believe that religious ideas coincide with human survival, not that a baby is born knowing Jesus.katsucats said: This hardly contradicts what I wrote. As usual, your criticism is irrelevant. Yes, it does. Evolutionary biologists believe that people are born with religious knowledge. Thus, it's very likely that the first people in the world were religious, which is what you were arguing against. |
TyrelJul 4, 2015 3:36 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Yes, it does. Evolutionary biologists believe that people are born with religious knowledge. Thus, it's very likely that the first people in the world were religious, which is what you were arguing against.[/quote] This just means whoever the first people in the world were who are religious is the true originator of religion and all should follow it as i have said in my posts if there was a religion to believe in its the oldest and surely that's possible. |
Dezra said: What in the fff are you talking about...This just means whoever the first people in the world were who are religious is the true originator of religion and all should follow it as i have said in my posts if there was a religion to believe in its the oldest and surely that's possible. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Drones flying over religious areas, speaking the truth and pointing out the holes in their logic through loud speakers constantly. Edit: Who am I kidding? The religious extremists would force people to destroy their hearing. |
katsucats said: Dezra said: What in the fff are you talking about...This just means whoever the first people in the world were who are religious is the true originator of religion and all should follow it as i have said in my posts if there was a religion to believe in its the oldest and surely that's possible. Lol hes saying the idea of religious thought comes naturally mostly from trying to understand the world around them and how it works so whoever conceived of the first working religion is probably in terms of authenticity to be the originator and the one all who currently worship a religion should convert to. Because said religions are copies and variants of the truest form of the conceptual idea. |
katsucats said: Olwen said: No, evolutionary psychologists believe that religious ideas coincide with human survival, not that a baby is born knowing Jesus.Yes, it does. Evolutionary biologists believe that people are born with religious knowledge. Thus, it's very likely that the first people in the world were religious, which is what you were arguing against. If religious ideas coincide with human survival, then babies HAVE to be born "knowing Jesus." That's what evolution is: you're born with traits needed for survival.You don't have even a basic grasp of evolutionary biology, let alone any of the branches in philosophy. |
TyrelJul 4, 2015 3:36 PM
katsucats said: ZA_WAYD said: No, science is not prescriptive.if its anything that science has thought us is to continuously evolve and not stay static. they call this mindset "l'esprit de chercheur" now u dont have to agree with it, but that would be like "your opinion" against the academic community's. but free speech is encouraged so ... katsucats said: ZA_WAYD said: Science, in this case, makes use of inductive reasoning, which applies to far more things than just "scientific fields studies". 1) if i claim that A is true without proving it , that doesnt make A wrong it just makes it unknown. this methodology is used in scientific fields for reasons of practicality and NOTHING else , meaning:" i cant make sure that A is absolute/true in all cases so it cant be trusted so i wont use it". fields that also falls in line of objects and phenomena that can be sensed, quantified, replicated, OBSERVED and measured. not THIS. katsucats said: If something is unknown and lacks sufficient evidence, then asserting is just a waste of time, yes, such things are usually DROPPED in scientific research or reasons of practicality and lack of credibility , that STILL doesn't mean its FALSE .... i swear i said that somewhere.... katsucats said: and expecting others to take you seriously is a perversion of your "God-given" facilities. ZA_WAYD said: keep in mind that im not making EITHER claims here. so basically im just calling both sides on their BS when they say stuff like "i found/disclaimed GOD !!" katsucats said: ZA_WAYD said: If A is true in an empty set, it is false.2) which is different from reasoning by absurdity: assuming that A is true and proving that its NOT in ALL cases => that A is FALSE. what u "think" u are reasoning with is 2 which in FACT is WRONG , u are using 1 and u are practically "in the dark" about this issue JUST like the rest of the human race. >assuming that we are working in empty set. are u saying that the set is empty because there are no cases that can be GOD-made ?? NEAT... would like to see how u can back up that nice "assumption". there are fuk tons of things that science STILL cant prove and even if the mechanics are debunked there WILL ALWAYS be a next question that will need an answer and will leave scientists powerless. and im p sure we are reaching an asymptotic progression rate in some scientific fields at this point and time ... but thats just imo. katsucats said: ZA_WAYD said: Fun note: Hypotheses need to be proven.that burden of proof never stooped scientists from adapting "postulates" and basing on them blocks upon blocks of research, which is something they STILL DO to this very day ... its called a leap of "faith".[/i] nope. Einstein's Hypotheses were never proven yet used as base for further research. such is the case in so so many researches .... i dunno why people complicate this process: 1) make an observation on an object. 2) make an assumption on why the behavior is like this. 3) in a certain set of conditions and replicated real time constraints if NO straying from this behavior has been displayed during the experiment, u can proceed to rule out other possibilities. hypotheses = proven however, this is still just 1 answer while there could be more precise or generalized/absolute answer ..... one that u might never get the chance to reach because U DONT know if it even existed priory. YES science is INHERENTLY limited, heck, even the entire process of proving and disclaiming is littered with ambiguity. |
 |
Olwen said: Being born with the inclination of religious thinking is not being born with the knowledge of God. With the fact that religious inclination needed to be evolved, and that other social animals that share our common ancestry have no religion, it is reasonable to conclude that the first humans had no religion. In fact, your Wikipedia article did not say that scientists delineate the beginning of our species based on thoughts about religion.katsucats said: No, evolutionary psychologists believe that religious ideas coincide with human survival, not that a baby is born knowing Jesus. If religious ideas coincide with human survival, then babies HAVE to be born "knowing Jesus." That's what evolution is: you're born with traits needed for survival.You don't have even a basic grasp of evolutionary biology, let alone any of the branches in philosophy, and are incapable of critical reasoning. Mod Edit: Removed baiting. |
TyrelJul 4, 2015 3:36 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Yabai said: Scientific proof of what exactly? Science has disproved so many religious claims. You can't prove non-existence. Not much left to do there. It's up to education and putting an end to indoctrination. This, basically. Science can only prove that something exists, not the other way around. I have my doubts about religious beliefs going away entirely, unfortunately... (even 100 years from now) but I feel like that would be a great world to live in if it did exist. |
vigorousjammerJul 4, 2015 3:00 PM
::End of Transmission:: What have I been watching? Click here and find out on my viewing blog, "Vigorous Viewing" |
Being born with the inclination of religious thinking is not being born with the knowledge of God. With the fact that religious inclination needed to be evolved, and that other social animals that share our common ancestry have no religion, it is reasonable to conclude that the first humans had no religion. In fact, your Wikipedia article did not say that scientists delineate the beginning of our species based on thoughts about religion. Straw man argument. I never said religious knowledge /=/ knowledge of God. |
| Going to bed soon but I'm gonna throw out a quick short reply cos your astounding ignorance is just too painful looking to ignore, I feel I have to help you as a neighbor. vigorousjammer said: Yabai said: Scientific proof of what exactly? Science has disproved so many religious claims. You can't prove non-existence. Not much left to do there. It's up to education and putting an end to indoctrination. This, basically. Science can only prove that something exists, not the other way around. I have my doubts about religious beliefs going away entirely, unfortunately... (even 100 years from now) but I feel like that would be a great world to live in if it did exist. What a narrow world view you have then. Basing your entire world view on "science" and then acting smug and superior is one of the most sheep minded, illogical and faith based* things you can do, and makes me see you as one of them fat reddit neckbeards (your pic doesn't help). Here are two reasons why your world view is extraudinarily narrow. First, you cannot get all the science details, it's just impossible. All the information you have is filtered to you through other people (unless you test EVERYTHING), who are almost always complete strangers. And your mommy should have told you not to trust strangers!! Even if we assume those people are honest which they haven't met their burden of proof to prove so, there is STILL the fact that they could just be mistaken... They are human beings after all and they aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Either way, the "evidence" you have is a distorted, sloppy mess that no serious intellectual could possibly take seriously (unless they were dishonest, delusional liars, Dawkins). The second reason is much more grave for your theory, and that's that Science cannot support itself. It cannot stand on its own legs. In order to prove something is correct, you need "evidence". So, how do you prove evidence is correct? With more evidence? If the answer is yes then you are using circular reasoning, science doesn't work. If the answer is no then you are admitting that there is no logical justification for what you are believing in. Maybe there's a third answer, if so I'd like to here it. I've put this problem to Atheists hundreds of time online and not a single one was able to give me a good answer without resorting to blubbering adhoms or dismissing me as dishonest and then ending the convo. Another thing, I bet you thought it would be smart to say something like "it would be a great world to live in" without religion. That's not a very smart thing to say. One of the most widely used "GOTCHA"s by Atheists is something like this (some nerd used it earlier in this thread too, guy sounded like a 12 year old): Religion has been responsible for more deaths than anything else in history. Here is the problem and it relates to the burden of proof which Atheists commonly misunderstand. The thing that Atheists cannot prove, even tho they dishonestly act like it's a certain fact, is that these events were religiously inspired. So, according to them, the Crusades were inspired by God. The same God who said "thou shalt not kill". The same one who taught about being a good Samaritan and helping the poor. In reality, these things were inspired by people pretending to be religious, then using their power to manipulate the ignorant masses who were uneducated at the time about the Bible because they couldn't read. I posit that it is much more reasonable to believe that these people (Stalin, Mao, whoever caused the crusades) were in fact Atheists. A common claim from Atheists is that all priests are pedophile Atheists taking advantage of the stupid. Well I'd say that's partially true: there are pedophile Atheists in the CATHOLIC church committing atrocities, abusing people every day. But as soon as they smugly say "Atheists are controlling you sheeple!" they immediately turn it around and use pedophile priests as evidence that Christianity is evil. That's a fucking double standard and anyone who uses that argument after reading this is just completely dishonest and ignorant. To claim Hitler was following the orders of God (Hitler citing the Bible is not evidence of anything; I can cite the quran and that doesn't make me a Mooslim) when 99% of your country, likely your family and friends are Christians, is offensive and insulting beyond belief. If you truly think Hitler was following the orders of God, don't you think Christians of today would be a little more nasty (...nazi?) than they actually are? Christians tend to be the nicest people btw, just check any website for proof. Yep, it's much more likely that they DON'T care what God thinks. That's just how it is. Do you think if Jim Kong Un of North Korea thought for one second that God was watching him and murder was a sin, that he would kill his uncle for beating him at basketball (or whatever silly reason it was)? No, it is much more likely that they don't care what Christianity teaches and more likely that they see themselves as God. I can also explain why and how the crusades, witch hunts, book burnings etc were caused by Atheism if anyone wants the full story. Also to the people saying babies born are Atheists, wrong. Babies are born as blank slates. Atheism = There ain't no God. So it is more accurate to describe them as Christians, as a self professed former Atheist. Even if what you said was true, it's ilrevent. Who cares what babies believe? That's why the Bible exists. You know, I may have well been an Atheist when I was a clueless, ignorant baby. I have since grown up. God bless. EDIT: *faith based = According to Atheists, this means belief without evidence and I was using it in that sense. In reality that's just a slanderized definition of faith which means trust, "putting your faith into" etc, for some reason it has been given negative conotations which I guess is exactly what Atheists wanted, doesn't mean it isn't dishonest tho. |
| Shoot first, think never. |
| religious institutions =/= religions literal interpretation of religious texts =/= symbolic interpretation of religious texts People should clarify what they are even talking about first before talking away. If you make it too abstract you may even start discussing about completely different things without noticing. |
 |
| Apparently walls of text |
eggroll said: Apparently walls of text +1 Might as well make this an Olwen vs Katsu thread. |
 |
| When people stop investing skill points into fai (faith for the uneducated) and instead invest them into int (intelligence for the uneducated). When that happens we just have to let the older generations die off. |
 |
| Scientific proof that there is no God or life after this |
| See? Scientific Method is "useful" to "debunk" religion indeed lmao What a joke |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
| Education. People who are more educated, are less likely to be religious. |
Oneesanismywaifu said: "Science have the ability to cut through prejudice and preconceptions and explore". The majority of anti-theists itt seem quite prejudiced towards the religious, and quite unwilling to explore any viewpoint other than their own |
katsucats said: I think what necessarily arises must be qualified. An argument could be made that intelligence is required to conceive of abstract ideas, such as life after death, or God; therefore, religion is correlated with a certain level of intelligence. But this is not the same as saying religion necessarily arises whenever a certain level of intelligence exists, or that intelligence requires religion (which is a reverse of cause and effect). Good point, correlation does not equal causation, but it certainly provides grounds to search for causal factors. Intelligence doesn't require religion in the sense of a deity, but it still requires a set foundation by which to base any beliefs, call that philosophy if you will. Most people would agree that social creatures have an understanding of empathy and probably social morals (depending on how you define morals). That social creatures exist without religion proves that societies don't devolve into chaotic Hobbesian nightmares without religion. Depending on how you define morals is important because many still affect issues that are not related to social interaction. Still, animal societies cannot be said to have the same stability as human ones........actually, that depends on your view of stability as one could argue that humans are more destructive as a whole to each other and to other species. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| I think the only way is to find something else that will give people meaning and certainty in their lives. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
PoeticJustice said: Education. People who are more educated, are less likely to be religious. You may be missing some confounding factors there........like wealth, status.....you know, nothing big. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Riki_Oh said: Oneesanismywaifu said: "Science have the ability to cut through prejudice and preconceptions and explore". The majority of anti-theists itt seem quite prejudiced towards the religious, and quite unwilling to explore any viewpoint other than their own But...but....am so smart to not believe in god. Smart people am have no prejudice or preconceptions. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: PoeticJustice said: Education. People who are more educated, are less likely to be religious. You may be missing some confounding factors there........like wealth, status.....you know, nothing big. Well, people who are educated are more likely to be liberal. In the end, trying to prove anything with this statistic is meaningless. |
 |
_Charl said: And the point of this discussion is? #bait but who cares i guess~~ |
|
| My beliefs in a nutshell kinda XD -- Religion is a way to keep society together, disciplined, and monitered -- Religion kills more people than any weapon or word. -- Religion produces death and pain, because of refusing to submit to another's beliefs, there is no freedom or Peace with religion. How to stop people from believing in religion is impossible. Human's arent made to be bold and independent, they must be told what to do or forced to do something if any work would be done at all. Religion is for people who cant think for themselves, they give up there freedom of thought and the right to live, to another being of higher power. Throughout Earth's history, you have seen Tyrant's and Nations, crushed by Group Ideals. Even today, most people would say they hate monarchy's, an example can be any nation with a dictator like N.Korea. If Humans have fought for freedom against These Solo powerful forces, why dont they fight religion, after all, your bowing your head to another being like a dog, your showing signs of weakness, not respect. Is it because of Society and Old Nations like the Spaniards, that humans dont fight religion, Because there too afraid of being alone and thrown away, possibly even getting killed for there opinions? I understand how people wanna believe that a higher force will "save us", but countless times we have also said, "If you wanna get something done right, it's best if you do it yourself." Honestly its about time we listen to our own advice and stop the useless indoctrination. --RXV |
| The moment a poster says "You don't know what Science is." They lost all credibility. Get off your high horse. Enough said. |
 |
Oneesanismywaifu said: Riki_Oh said: The majority of anti-theists itt seem quite prejudiced towards the religious, and quite unwilling to explore any viewpoint other than their own Sorry I missed a word lol ""Science have the ability to cut through prejudice and preconceptions and explore the universe." However, those atheist that are prejudiced towards religious are just like the religious that are prejudiced towards other beliefs. I have no problems towards any religion, the only thing that bother is that (again, I will make use of a quote) "On every corner of the globe parents are indoctrinating their children into specific faith groups. In effect, they are teaching their children to be close-minded about the nature of the universe and indifferent or even hostile to the wide spectrum of other faiths and ideologies." Why does teaching your children about religion automatically mean they are being indoctrinated and taught that science is wrong? |
PeripheralVision said: RedRoseFring said: You may be missing some confounding factors there........like wealth, status.....you know, nothing big. Well, people who are educated are more likely to be liberal. In the end, trying to prove anything with this statistic is meaningless. If you associate education = government indoctrination as a lot of people do, suddenly that statistic doesn't look so good for the followers of Atheism. Oneesanismywaifu said: Riki_Oh said: Why does teaching your children about religion automatically mean they are being indoctrinated and taught that science is wrong? The problem is not that they teach children about religion, the problem is that they tell them that the point of view they're being teached is the only right one and the others are completely wrong, so they tell them to ignore the spectrum. Lying again? You aren't making Atheists seem any more trustworthy, you know. OK, since your such a brilliant Scientist, why don't you go ahead and prove your claim that religious people tell their children to "ignore the spectrum"? Cos sounds like BS to me. When I have kids I am going to tell them to make their own choice about whether to follow God or not. Just like I made my choice, and you have made yours. |
Haunt-botJul 4, 2015 7:51 PM
| Shoot first, think never. |
Oneesanismywaifu said: Riki_Oh said: Why does teaching your children about religion automatically mean they are being indoctrinated and taught that science is wrong? The problem is not that they teach children about religion, the problem is that they tell them that the point of view they're being teached is the only right one and the others are completely wrong, so they tell them to ignore the spectrum. Atheist parents can be guilty of the same thing. And it seems unrealistic to teach a young child every religion and belief in existence. I don't think religious families force beliefs on their children as much as anti-thiests claim, i think they're providing them with a set of values that they think is best for their child |
| Here is my rant. You can apply "shoving throat just anywhere"(it's already happening in this thread). Non-related Church(Church/Temple =/= Religion) Indoctrine Belief Examples Go to school. Get a good grade. Get a job. Be successful. Get a waifu. Seriously, church, school, it doesn't matter. They only supply knowledge books and teach how to be well verse in it. And that is it. E.g. I take Math. I learn what 2+2 = 4. But what is Math? Are they real? Can you see it with our 5 major senses? Sh*t Math teacher, obviously, doesn't know. Because that isn't their job. And being critical is not about avoid the church or school. Being critical is maybe what we know and taught are not exactly what we thought, regardless of institution interest. To be honest, if a person want their kid goes to church. Let them. I only reject, not because I am a critical and logical thinker. Because of an emotional one. I am concern obviously. Why can't people be more honest? End rant. |
|
PoeticJustice said: I beg to differ, education has absolutely no effect on the religion of someone. Proof of that is the fact that hundreds of scientists are religious, and some of the greatest minds humanity has ever seen such as Isaac Newton were also Christian.Education. People who are more educated, are less likely to be religious. Of course, when on the Internet it is way easier to say "lol religious people are so dumb xDDDD i am atheist so my iq automatically goes to like 130 lol!" rather than actually analyzing history and statistics to make conclusions. As the others said previously, educated people are also likely to respect the opinions of others and are also bound to have an open mind. RoninXV said: I guess that the Catholic Church managed to perform that duty quite well some hundred years ago. However, it's not reality anymore, religion is not used as a form of discipline and monitoring at all.-- Religion is a way to keep society together, disciplined, and monitered RoninXV said: That's funny because you said previously it was supposed to monitor others? Suddenly, that monitoring is also a weapon of mass destruction? Besides that, religion doesn't kill "more than any weapon or word". Take for example the crusades. You might think that religion caused them, when in fact the prime causes were always economical and political. They used the religion excuse to manipulate the soldiers and give them more courage. It's a shame, but the war would have happened anyway, not to mention that in the end the Crusades had great impacts on Europe (culture wise and economically wise).-- Religion kills more people than any weapon or word. Meanwhile, we can analyze Hitler, who killed six millions of jews (or three millions accordingly to Germans), that Chinese emperor who was responsible for dozens of millions of deaths, and even WW1/2 and other wars of the 21th century that resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. Do you still think that religion kills more than anything? RoninXV said: It's quite the opposite though. Take the most popular religion, Christianism, as an example. Christians are bound to love not only each other (as friends/brothers), but also everyone around them. I'd say that religion brings peace. Of course, you might point the fact that some Christians are aggressive towards certain minorities such as homosexuals, but truth is, they are not like that just because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. No, not at all, they probably would hate homosexuals even if they weren't Christians (just like there are several homophobic Atheists), but it's always easier to use the Bible as an excuse to hate a certain minority. In the end, everyone should respect and love each other, and you can't really blame religion if someone fails to do that, it's mostly human nature.-- Religion produces death and pain, because of refusing to submit to another's beliefs, there is no freedom or Peace with religion. |
 |
More topics from this board
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - 1 hour ago |
9 |
by Destinesia
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Is English your native language? ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 16 |
57 |
by Destinesia
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» Do you like sport? ( 1 2 3 )-miharu- - Mar 27, 2019 |
104 |
by LoveYourEyes
»»
45 minutes ago |
|
» Do you post your own original artwork onto social media?DesuMaiden - Apr 10 |
26 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Manga piracy website operator ordered to pay ¥1.7 billion to publishersMeusnier - 5 hours ago |
8 |
by TibetanJazz666
»»
1 hour ago |