Dubstepforum.com

Phigure wrote:they're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient personal being

Thats what bugs me.

I like using the word God to describe the universe, because a) it helps convey the sense of awe, beauty and adoration I feel and b) why the fuck not? Its a nice word.

And I think that b) really is the important thing, why do you even care what people believe? As long as people are nice to each other and the world around them, its nowt to do with you really is it? And people can be nice or nasty regardless of their religious beliefs. Be nice, be happy and everything's good you know

Religious persecution and discrimination seems to be becoming more and more acceptable because "LOL DEY BELIEVE IN FAIRIES AND STUFF WE GOT SCIENCE" - how much do you actually know about Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Jainism/whichever next religion you're attacking? And don't forget, in one thousand years they will be laughing at us for believing in atoms and gravity.

Just remember that wether you believe in an omniscient being, or Brahma, or the Void or nothing at all, people are people and its individuals that you're talking about, not some imaginary being called a "Believer"

yeah but there's no sense getting mad about it. yeah, it's a shame that in this day and age people still believe in that sort of stuff, but see it this way: we're well on our way of getting rid of it. religion once had a function in society, to explain the universe and provide a basic moral code in less civilized times (both of which we are now better served by science and modern laws/society). there's record rates of atheism all across the western world right now.

you just can't expect humanity to simply forget about something it has lived with for thousands of years. give it at most another century or two and believers will be a tiny minority amongst an overwhelming secular majority.

^ And yet Athiests hate Islam because "its trying to take over the world"

haha look as I said before this isn't the time or the place to talk about this, but that doesnt mean ive changed my mind, I find it irritating that people still believe things that are so unreasonable - creationism? really? Its such a shortcut to skip difficult questions. Im not attacking anyone, I hear people talking about their own religions all the time and I dont see how me discussing this is any different.

'As long as people are nice to each other and the world around them' - It is not uncommon for people of different religions to persecute each other.

Kochari wrote:I like using the word God to describe the universe, because a) it helps convey the sense of awe, beauty and adoration I feel and b) why the fuck not? Its a nice word.

And I think that b) really is the important thing, why do you even care what people believe? As long as people are nice to each other and the world around them, its nowt to do with you really is it? And people can be nice or nasty regardless of their religious beliefs. Be nice, be happy and everything's good you know

Religious persecution and discrimination seems to be becoming more and more acceptable because "LOL DEY BELIEVE IN FAIRIES AND STUFF WE GOT SCIENCE" - how much do you actually know about Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Jainism/whichever next religion you're attacking? And don't forget, in one thousand years they will be laughing at us for believing in atoms and gravity.

Just remember that wether you believe in an omniscient being, or Brahma, or the Void or nothing at all, people are people and its individuals that you're talking about, not some imaginary being called a "Believer"

I totally agree, I feel the same sense of awe, beauty, etc in the universe, and there's nothing really wrong with you calling THAT god (which is in essence, pantheism), but god is sort of commonly defined as referring to an omnipotent PERSONAL being, ie, having emotions, thoughts, being self aware, etc. That's why I think it's sort of incorrect to refer to that sort of belief as a "god" (not that i really care)

As for B, sure there's individuals who can be responsible with religion, but it's a little like gun ownership, there will always be ones who can't handle it. religion channels a lot of humanity's negative aspects (and sure, some good ones as well, but they can be channeled just as well without religion) and gives certain thoughts validity and credence in the eyes of certain people.

At the danger of sounding a bit arrogant, I'm actually quuuuiiiiiite sure that I know a lot more about the Abrahamic religions than most of their followers do. If more people actually knew what it was about, I'm sure there would be a lot less believers... You wouldn't believe how oblivious many people are to some of the atrocities and outright hatred in the New and Old Testament, Qur'an, etc. Or some of the absolute absurdities (like when god sends two bears to kill a group of children for making fun of a believer and calling him "baldy")

And sure I get your point that many times what we see as truths turn out to be wrong, but that's a pretty poor example. we certainly won't be mocked for believing in atoms and gravity as they're both irrefutably proven. electrons, neutrons, protons and their interactions with the world have all been directly observed, even the elementary particles that compose them (except for electrons, which are elementary). maybe pick a better example next time?

Kochari wrote:^ And yet Athiests hate Islam because "its trying to take over the world"

nobody is trying to take over the world, i was simply describing the natural progression. primitive culture invents origin myth > origin myth gets a little out of hand and becomes major world religion > continues to survive because it fulfills a certain role in society > niches in society is fulfilled by other more advanced things > religion slowly fades away into obscurity.

it's a bit absurd to compare the sentiment of atheists to the those of the religious. you don't see atheists going door to door proselytizing. you don't see us engaging in crusades or anything do you? what's the worst atheists are doing? posting some "mean" comments towards theists on the internet compared to slaughtering millions in the name of god?

Kochari wrote:^ And yet Athiests hate Islam because "its trying to take over the world"

I think your confusing EDL with Atheists.

Phigure wrote: give it at most another century or two and believers will be a tiny minority amongst an overwhelming secular majority.

wouldnt put my money on that, maybe i'm pessimistic but i can see a massive backlash of religious fundamentalism in the next century... not that i'm longing for it mind

Phigure wrote: we certainly won't be mocked for believing in atoms and gravity as they're both irrefutably proven beyond a doubt. maybe pick a better example next time?

how about being mocked for thinking just because a couple of ancient books have been misinterpreted by various people to serve their own interests is a valid reason to discard whatever other info they might contain ?

Phigure wrote:

Kochari wrote:I like using the word God to describe the universe, because a) it helps convey the sense of awe, beauty and adoration I feel and b) why the fuck not? Its a nice word.

And I think that b) really is the important thing, why do you even care what people believe? As long as people are nice to each other and the world around them, its nowt to do with you really is it? And people can be nice or nasty regardless of their religious beliefs. Be nice, be happy and everything's good you know

Religious persecution and discrimination seems to be becoming more and more acceptable because "LOL DEY BELIEVE IN FAIRIES AND STUFF WE GOT SCIENCE" - how much do you actually know about Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Jainism/whichever next religion you're attacking? And don't forget, in one thousand years they will be laughing at us for believing in atoms and gravity.

Just remember that wether you believe in an omniscient being, or Brahma, or the Void or nothing at all, people are people and its individuals that you're talking about, not some imaginary being called a "Believer"

I totally agree, I feel the same sense of awe, beauty, etc in the universe, and there's nothing really wrong with you calling THAT god (which is in essence, pantheism), but god is sort of commonly defined as referring to an omnipotent PERSONAL being, ie, having emotions, thoughts, being self aware, etc. That's why I think it's sort of incorrect to refer to that sort of belief as a "god" (not that i really care)

As for B, sure there's individuals who can be responsible with religion, but it's a little like gun ownership, there will always be ones who can't handle it. religion channels a lot of humanity's negative aspects (and sure, some good ones as well, but they can be channeled just as well without religion) and gives certain thoughts validity and credence in the eyes of certain people.

At the danger of sounding a bit arrogant, I'm actually quuuuiiiiiite sure that I know a lot more about the Abrahamic religions than most of their followers do. If more people actually knew what it was about, I'm sure there would be a lot less believers... You wouldn't believe how oblivious many people are to some of the atrocities and outright hatred in the New and Old Testament, Qur'an, etc. Or some of the absolute absurdities (like when god sends two bears to kill a group of children for making fun of a believer and calling him "baldy")

And sure I get your point that many times what we see as truths turn out to be wrong, but that's a pretty poor example. we certainly won't be mocked for believing in atoms and gravity as they're both irrefutably proven. electrons, neutrons, protons and their interactions with the world have all been directly observed, even the elementary particles that compose them (except for electrons, which are elementary). maybe pick a better example next time?

Kochari wrote:^ And yet Athiests hate Islam because "its trying to take over the world"

nobody is trying to take over the world, i was simply describing the natural progression. primitive culture invents origin myth > origin myth gets a little out of hand and becomes major world religion > continues to survive because it fulfills a certain role in society > niches in society is fulfilled by other more advanced things > religion slowly fades away into obscurity.

it's a bit absurd to compare the sentiment of atheists to the those of the religious. you don't see atheists going door to door proselytizing. you don't see us engaging in crusades or anything do you? what's the worst atheists are doing? posting some "mean" comments towards theists on the internet compared to slaughtering millions in the name of god?

Your better with words than me.

Hmm, I don't want you guys to think I'm some sort of religious freak - far from it. I also don't want you to think there's anything but love in this debate, I'm always interested in hearing other points of view

Phigure wrote:certain people.

This is really the point I'm trying to get across. Yes, there are religious extremists. Yes, there are non-religious extremists. Yes, there are religious non-extremists. Yes, there are non-religious non-extremists.

Try to see beyond the label of Jew/Muslim/Hindu/etc, and try to see instead Dave/Tariq/Avnita/etc.

Its when people try and tell believers what they believe that I get bugged. Eg;

Phigure wrote: I totally agree, I feel the same sense of awe, beauty, etc in the universe, and there's nothing really wrong with you calling THAT god (which is in essence, pantheism)

Erm, kind of, but I wouldn't really say I'm a pantheist. I've variously described myselef as a pantheist, a Buddhist, an Atheist, a Brahmist and many other things, before realising that no, I'm just me and my beliefs are individual. People often tell me that Buddhism is a "confused religion" because nobody really agrees on anything within it. That to me seems like the best way to do it - spiritual matters can't be proven with a microscope, they're totally up to the individual to come to by his or her own rational process. So yeah, nobody agrees, because everyone is different. Big criticism.

I'm actually quite sure that I know a lot more about the Abrahamic religions than most of their followers do. If more people actually knew what it was about, I'm sure there would be a lot less believers... You wouldn't believe how oblivious many people are to some of the atrocities and outright hatred in the New and Old Testament, Qur'an, etc. Or some of the absolute absurdities (like when god sends two bears to kill a group of children for making fun of a believer and calling him "baldy")

You know more about what a Christian believes then he or she does??? By God that's a old claim man, are you psychic? You might know more about the scripture yes, but that doesn't mean you know what THEY PERSONALLY believe. Christians (and JEws and Muslims too) are often accused of "picking and choosing", as if that's a bad thing! OF COURSE any sane and rational person knows that the stuff about killing homosexuals/women on their periods being unclean/bears eating babies is a load of bollocks. If you or I were to say that, well done, we're sane and rational beings. If a Christian says that, he can't make his bloody mind up, picking and choosing blahblahblah. You might want all Christians to be hardcore fundamentalists who take every word of scripture as fact in order to further your own agendas, but I'm sorry mate, thats simply not the case.

And sure I get your point that many times what we see as truths turn out to be wrong, but that's a pretty poor example. we certainly won't be mocked for believing in atoms and gravity as they're both irrefutably proven beyond a doubt. maybe pick a better example next time?

Just like humours and humunculi were irrefutably proven beyond doubt? Maybe pick a better example next time

dfaultuzr wrote:

Phigure wrote: give it at most another century or two and believers will be a tiny minority amongst an overwhelming secular majority.

wouldnt put my money on that, maybe i'm pessimistic but i can see a massive backlash of religious fundamentalism in the next century... not that i'm longing for it mind

im sort of with you on number one, but when i think about the exponential growth of technology and the spread of information, i think extreme fundamentalists will be nothing more then a few hiccups and bumps in the road. look how far we've come in the couple decades alone.

dfaultuzr wrote:

Phigure wrote: we certainly won't be mocked for believing in atoms and gravity as they're both irrefutably proven beyond a doubt. maybe pick a better example next time?

how about being mocked for thinking just because a couple of ancient books have been misinterpreted by various people to serve their own interests is a valid reason to discard whatever other info they might contain ?

what value lies in the abrahamic religions that can't be served by some other more modern function of society?

Terpit wrote:

Kochari wrote:^ And yet Athiests hate Islam because "its trying to take over the world"

I think your confusing EDL with Atheists.

Haha...Touche

also equating all religious people to either crusaders, inquisitors, slave-owners, jihad-terrorists or pedophiles is as simplistic a shortcut as saying "atheists dont believe in god and therefore have no sense of morality or ethics" imo

this said

"You wouldn't believe how oblivious many people are to some of the atrocities and outright hatred in the New and Old Testament, Qur'an, etc. Or some of the absolute absurdities (like when god sends two bears to kill a group of children for making fun of a believer and calling him "baldy")"

completely agree with you on that,but unless you are suggesting these texts were actually written/dictated by God/angels/the flying spaghetti monster, it should be no surprise some bullshit found its way in there ? i don't know, discarding the overall value of these texts only based on the fact that there are obvious (and sometimes understandable) mistakes in them seems as weird and incomprehensible as accepting them without question because they are supposedly gospel.

tl, dr edit: i'm not saying we should all turn to fundamentalism, just i think we should see what we can learn from religions to inform our lives instead of just rejecting it all in bulk

Hmm, I don't want you guys to think I'm some sort of religious freak - far from it. I also don't want you to think there's anything but love in this debate, I'm always interested in hearing other points of view

no worries, i know you're a level headed, intelligent dude. i also really enjoy debates like this and it's not often you can have a pleasant one

You know more about what a Christian believes then he or she does???

let's be honest though, so many "believers" out there aren't people who read scripture or even attend church. they're just individuals who were brought up with the religion and claim it as their belief by default. and yes, i do assert that i'm a bit more knowledgeable than they are.

Christians (and JEws and Muslims too) are often accused of "picking and choosing", as if that's a bad thing! OF COURSE any sane and rational person knows that the stuff about killing homosexuals/women on their periods being unclean/bears eating babies is a load of bollocks.

don't get me wrong, i'm glad they choose to ignore the absurd stuff and don't follow it. the point that lies behind that though, is that if these holy texts are the supreme, infallible word of god, are you not denying the validity of the whole thing by denying the validity of certain parts? i mean, in these books, god endorses brutal murder by methods such as stoning for what are nowadays seen as harmless crimes, but centuries ago, it was followed and people were slaughtering other people because they think god wanted them to.

Erm, kind of, but I wouldn't really say I'm a pantheist. I've variously described myselef as a pantheist, a Buddhist, an Atheist, a Brahmist and many other things, before realising that no, I'm just me and my beliefs are individual. People often tell me that Buddhism is a "confused religion" because nobody really agrees on anything within it. That to me seems like the best way to do it - spiritual matters can't be proven with a microscope, they're totally up to the individual to come to by his or her own rational process. So yeah, nobody agrees, because everyone is different. Big criticism.

fair enough, wasn't my intention to label your beliefs. also, i do want to add that i don't universally disapprove of all religions. i'm a fan of buddhism, for example. it's a lot more humble and not as arrogant (and also not as violent!) as christianity, judaism, etc and focuses a lot more on personal discovery rather than being told explicitly what to believe and how to behave. and with that, you also see a change in the way they act. you've got muslims, jews, and christians stoning people, going on crusades, etc, while buddhists do what exactly? at their worst they self immolate . to me that seems like a direct correlation between the message of a religion and the behavior of its followers.

Try to see beyond the label of Jew/Muslim/Hindu/etc, and try to see instead Dave/Tariq/Avnita/etc.

yes, nowadays that argument works because we have modern society and civilized behavior taking a grasp on people. before that though, there were centuries of cruel intolerance. nowadays something like the spanish inquisition would never happen, but it did, thanks to religion.

Just like humours and humunculi were irrefutably proven beyond doubt?

there's a difference between that and several decades of scientific research, observation, peer review, etc. saying the atomic theory could end up being incorrect at this point is about the same as saying we could be wrong about the sun being at the center of the solar system.

dfaultuzr wrote:also equating all religious people to either crusaders, inquisitors, slave-owners, jihad-terrorists or pedophiles is as simplistic a shortcut as saying "atheists dont believe in god and therefore have no sense of morality or ethics" imo

that's not the point of the picture. it's not saying all religious people are like that, it's simply showing them at their worst, poking fun of the fact that there's no such equivalent of "atheists at their worst". again, atheists at their worst poke fun at religious people on the internet.

completely agree with you on that,but unless you are suggesting these texts were actually written/dictated by God/angels/the flying spaghetti monster, it should be no surprise some bullshit found its way in there ? i don't know, discarding the overall value of these texts only based on the fact that there are obvious (and sometimes understandable) mistakes in them seems as weird and incomprehensible as accepting them without question because they are supposedly gospel.

tl, dr edit: i'm not saying we should all turn to fundamentalism, just i think we should see what we can learn from religions to inform our lives instead of just rejecting it all in bulk

sure, bullshit found its way in there, but think about it from the perspective of a religious person. a religious person believes that this words in the book they're holding was brought to them by god. would a god allow his message to be so easily adulterated by people throwing in some bullshit? yes, there are mistakes, but again, from the perspective of a believer, would a god allow mistakes to appear and then allow mistaken copies of his word to disseminate all across the world? it's a bit absurd to think he wouldn't step in and sort of guide it to make sure the correct message reaches people. as a religious person, i think you're sort of obligated to take the whole thing as being "god's word" or take none of it at all.

and again, sure there's some value in these books, but nothing that's exclusive to religion. nothing that we can't gain from other sources.

anyways, it's 6 am here, i've got to go to sleep. nice chatting with all of you though

Just want to point out that although I love certain parts of Buddhism, it is just as flawed as any other religion, for instance, this has been happening for a while now;

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm

"Here, for example, are excerpts of songs, published by the government, of the Buddhist monk Elle Gunavamsa:
The sword is pulled from the [scabbard], it is
Not put back unless smeared with blood.
I turned by blood to milk to make you grow
Not for myself but for the country
My brave, brilliant soldier son
Leaving [home] to defend the motherland
That act of merit is enough
To reach Nirvāna in a future birth."

Crikey.

Christians have traditionally been very good at helping others - that's kind of the whole point. Sufi Muslims are also all about the tolerance and kindness. These things are not black and white.

"nowadays something like the spanish inquisition would never happen, but it did, thanks to religion." - "nowadays something like the Stalinist purges or Chinese persecutions in Tibet would never happen, but they did, thanks to Athiems" - you see how ridiculous this argument is? Dicks are dicks, regardless of their religion or otherwise.

dfaultuzer wrote:tl, dr edit: i'm not saying we should all turn to fundamentalism, just i think we should see what we can learn from religions to inform our lives instead of just rejecting it all in bulk

thank you Allane, very succinctly put

Phigure wrote:there's no such equivalent of "atheists at their worst"

Kochari wrote: "nowadays something like the spanish inquisition would never happen, but it did, thanks to religion." - "nowadays something like the Stalinist purges or Chinese persecutions in Tibet would never happen, but they did, thanks to Athiems" - you see how ridiculous this argument is? Dicks are dicks, regardless of their religion or otherwise.

this completely, nazism could be another valid exemple (though more debatable maybe)... the point being it's not about religion, the problem lies with us, give an idea, even a great one, to ignorant enough people, and they will most probably end up doing terrible stuff to defend their own warped vision of this idea...

cf. Brostep Part Deux ?

dfaultuzr wrote:also equating all religious people to either crusaders, inquisitors, slave-owners, jihad-terrorists or pedophiles is as simplistic a shortcut as saying "atheists dont believe in god and therefore have no sense of morality or ethics" imo

that's not the point of the picture. it's not saying all religious people are like that, it's simply showing them at their worst, poking fun of the fact that there's no such equivalent of "atheists at their worst". again, atheists at their worst poke fun at religious people on the internet.

Well now, we both know that that's not true. As I mentioned in the other post, Stalanist purges/Chinese persecutions in Tibet/North Korean labour camps - these things were done in the name of wiping out religion. This is an overt attack on religiosity, but what scares me more is the type of thing you were saying a few pages back, about hoping that religious belief will be wiped out. You think this is ok to say, because hey - you're not killing anyone right? If I was a big scary Muslim saying these things - "Jewish belief must be wiped out"would you say I was an extremist or a rational thinker like you? More to the point, in my opinion it is NOT acceptable to label religious thinkers as "small minded", "stupid", "outdated" etc. This so easily leads to the kind of behaviour we see between religious groups all the time. How you can think that this kind of behaviour and thinking is any different from racism/sexism etc is beyond me.

anyways, it's 6 am here, i've got to go to sleep. nice chatting with all of you though

You too mate

'friends' talking down to me, from some perceived high horse because they assume they 'have been doing this longer'.

Kochari wrote: Dicks are dicks, regardless of their religion or otherwise.

This is the point I keep trying to put across to people

Kochari wrote:^ And yet Athiests hate Islam because "its trying to take over the world"

do i?

sorry before i was distracted by this retarded post, the thing the pissed me off today is my threads getting moved into General.
allow it mods