Religion

[darthearth]

By the way, I still have yet to hear the materialist atheists explain how p-consciousness, something non-physical in nature (the fact that it is non-physical in nature is another thing that is evident that atheists seem to have great trouble with) can arise from solely physical systems (mere particles and forces inexplicably and all of a sudden "seeing a blue sky", it's almost funny if it weren't so completely pitiful). Explain how the non-physical can be produced from the solely physical, and how this is "rational" as opposed to the more simple and straightforward conclusion that we are non-physical entities, inherently capable of p-consciousness, accessing the information in the neurons to produce our phenomenal experience. Thank you.

(oh let's see, I'll bet they say I have no "evidence" that phenomenal awareness is not "physical stuff" that can't be produced from the physical, or my reasoning is a "non sequitur".......somehow, "we don't know so God did it" ....."non sequitur" right? The wonderful fallback of the atheist when they have nowhere else to go.) Truly "laughing out loud".

[Vlerchan]

By the way, I still have yet to hear the materialist atheists explain how p-consciousness, something non-physical in nature [...] can arise from solely physical systems [...]
I've explained already that I'm unable to explain every phenomenon. You're asking the wrong person if you seriously want to know the theory behind P-Consciousness - I don't even know what the term means:/. I can only add that I find the option to continue the search for answers preferable to claiming God the answer to all of life's difficult questions and attributing all of such phenomenon's to Him. Why? Because such as answer - God did it - only leads to the suppression of rational thought and human curiosity. I refuse to re-enter the Dark Ages. (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp)

"we don't know so God did it" ....."non sequitur" right?
I'm genuinely confused at how you can continue to believe that the embodiment of modern irrationality is a rational conclusion to any argument. Your continued assertions - See: Argument by Assertion - don't make you any more correct.

[Fanta_Lover44]

I believe in god, heaven and hell. I'm not in any sort of religion though.

[Srom]

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God and the reason why I believe is because of what He did on the cross for all of our sins and He rose again from the grave proving that He is God and that death didn't defeat Him. I believe Jesus Christ still exists today. I am not really in a religion because a religion means that someone has to follow somebody but Christianity isn't like that. You choose to become a follower of Christ so it's mostly a relationship with God. It's not really a religion. People label it a religion but it's a relationship with Christ.

[Romulus]

I am Christian. Specifically Roman Catholic (or Latin Rite, as it is sometimes called).

I agree with what the OP. As God is our Father, we are all brothers and sisters. Therefor, we should treat each other as brother and sister.

Pax,
Romulus

[darthearth]

I believe in god, heaven and hell. I'm not in any sort of religion though.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son Of God and the reason why I believe is because of what He did on the cross for all of our sins and He rose again from the grave proving that He is God and that death didn't defeat Him. I believe Jesus Christ still exists today. I am not really in a religion because a religion means that someone has to follow somebody but Christianity isn't like that. You choose to become a follower of Christ so it's mostly a relationship with God. It's not really a religion. People label it a religion but it's a relationship with Christ.

I am Christian. Specifically Roman Catholic (or Latin Rite, as it is sometimes called).

I agree with what the OP. As God is our Father, we are all brothers and sisters. Therefor, we should treat each other as brother and sister.

Pax,
Romulus

Totally agree guys. Nice to hear.

[Sorge]

I used to be Methodist Christian, but denounced my faith a few months ago. I'm now Agnostic. My parents are Catholic and Baptist and Texas is a pretty religious place, so it's somewhat of a secret to people I know in real life. Anyways, this is about my personal opinion, so here we go.

The ideology of Agnosticism is, essentially, that the existence of any kind of supreme being is unknown, and that you cannot prove or disprove any kind of deities actually existing. I follow this pretty much down to the letter, and it makes sense to me. The thing about religion being black and white for me is dumb. Think about all the religions in the world. There's hundreds, maybe thousands. I see no reason why one group would believe they were correct while there are so many other people who have completely separate beliefs. I'm going to use Christianity as an example here, simply as it's the one I have the most... experience... with. The way I was raised was all that "All other religions are wrong and everyone who isn't Christian is going to Hell" and "Homosexuality is a sin blah blah blah homophobic bullshit". Now don't take that as an insult, that's simply how I was raised and how my family wanted me to be. I'm 100% tolerant of all beliefs, and, while I may strongly oppose them, people have the right to believe whatever they want. And I got really off there, so let's try to get back on track. I simply don't see the logic in thinking like that, as well as just the existence of gods in general. And I'm not negatively biased towards Theism of any kind, same goes for Atheism. I can't explicitly say weather a god exists or not, or why things are the way they are, be it through creation by some supreme being, or a completely natural, physical occurence. As for fighting between different beliefs, I really don't see the point of it. Let people think how they like, plain and simple. This kinda fell apart and got extremely basic fast, so I think I'm just gonna end it here.

TL;DR: I am Agnostic because I don't think people are meant to know why things are the way they are, both Theism and Atheism seem illogical to me, and though I don't necessarily agree with various beliefs, people have the right to believe whatever they want.

[Seahawks15]

I am Roman Catholic.

[Hallie]

The main reason I'm an atheist is because I think it is arrogant to believe that this entire massive universe that we can never explore fully or even mostly was created for us. Just think about it. The earth doesn't even take up a hundred billionth of a percent in the universe, and yet some believe that the entire thing was created just for us. If there ever was a creator, then i seriously doubt that he/she knows we exist. And if there is a god that is watching over us, then he is a pretty horrible one. A lot of people use the argument that there are so many beautiful things in life, and yes, I agree. But how come god totally ignores the horrible things in the world? Children. Starving. And there are millions of them. What did they do to deserve that? Murder, rape, cancer, miscarriage, torture, depression, suicide, hate, and not to mention that most animals in the wild will live their entire lives terrified and will die young, horribly bloody, painful deaths. Why would an all loving god bring them into the world just to give them lives like that? And yes, I have read the bible. I've probably read more of it than many christians. And I have to agree with this: "When read properly, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
Also this:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss you god, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

[rogoshtalmour]

Hallie you said so many things there and I do want to take the time to address some of them but first I must ask you a question in 2 different ways. I see your location is Virginia. First question would you prefer the US government tell you everything you must do and then force you to do it or would you prefer to continue enjoying the freedom of choice you have today? 2nd question is basically the same question but instead of considering the US government consider your parents would you prefer for them to have the power to force you to do anything they want or do you like being able to make your own choices sometimes even if your choices are somewhat limited since they are your parents and do have some say over what you do much in the same way the government does limit our choices but we still have choice overall?

[rogoshtalmour]

The main reason I'm an atheist is because I think it is arrogant to believe that this entire massive universe that we can never explore fully or even mostly was created for us. Just think about it. The earth doesn't even take up a hundred billionth of a percent in the universe, and yet some believe that the entire thing was created just for us. If there ever was a creator, then i seriously doubt that he/she knows we exist. And if there is a god that is watching over us, then he is a pretty horrible one. A lot of people use the argument that there are so many beautiful things in life, and yes, I agree. But how come god totally ignores the horrible things in the world? Children. Starving. And there are millions of them. What did they do to deserve that? Murder, rape, cancer, miscarriage, torture, depression, suicide, hate, and not to mention that most animals in the wild will live their entire lives terrified and will die young, horribly bloody, painful deaths. Why would an all loving god bring them into the world just to give them lives like that? And yes, I have read the bible. I've probably read more of it than many christians. And I have to agree with this: "When read properly, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov
Also this:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss you god, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

forgot to quote you so you would see my reply doing so now

[Hallie]

Hallie you said so many things there and I do want to take the time to address some of them but first I must ask you a question in 2 different ways. I see your location is Virginia. First question would you prefer the US government tell you everything you must do and then force you to do it or would you prefer to continue enjoying the freedom of choice you have today? 2nd question is basically the same question but instead of considering the US government consider your parents would you prefer for them to have the power to force you to do anything they want or do you like being able to make your own choices sometimes even if your choices are somewhat limited since they are your parents and do have some say over what you do much in the same way the government does limit our choices but we still have choice overall?

First of all, you used so many run-on sentences and it was hard to follow what you were saying. Second of all, I fail to see how this relates to my religious views or what I have said about them. I am fairly sure that you are trying to bring up the point that god has given us free will, therefore it is our choice whether to believe in him or not. But let me ask you a question: would you want your parents to drown you and the rest of the world because they are "evil" even though many of them are children who don't know better? Would you want them to pick a favorite child (Cane and Abel)? Would you want them to tell you not to kill anyone, then go killing people themselves? Would you want them to threaten to burn you in a pit of despair for the rest of eternity if you've done a bad thing? Do you think that is good parenting?

[AlexOnToast]

Nope....dont believe in any of that stuff, never have, never will

[Sanctum]

i am religious so i have a plan which says to me what is good and what is bad and has given me the authority whether to choose it or not.
and i don't think atheism is a religion.
when you believe in nothing then you couldn't claim that you have a religion.

[rogoshtalmour]

First of all, you used so many run-on sentences and it was hard to follow what you were saying. Second of all, I fail to see how this relates to my religious views or what I have said about them. I am fairly sure that you are trying to bring up the point that god has given us free will, therefore it is our choice whether to believe in him or not. But let me ask you a question: would you want your parents to drown you and the rest of the world because they are "evil" even though many of them are children who don't know better? Would you want them to pick a favorite child (Cane and Abel)? Would you want them to tell you not to kill anyone, then go killing people themselves? Would you want them to threaten to burn you in a pit of despair for the rest of eternity if you've done a bad thing? Do you think that is good parenting?

No my only intent was to establish whether or not you want free will? Though it seems to me you have already revealed what you really want is autonomous free will meaning you want free will without consequence for anything you might choose to do. And well that is nothing but a childish view of the world. There is cause and effect. So everything we do has a consequence. You want the freedom to do what you want but face no consequence. You even want to use the excuse that most are children who just didn't know any better. The Bible tried to tell people a better way to behave but they choose to ignore it. No i am afraid ignorance is not and can not be an excuse. People know what the right things to do are but they actively choose to do evil. And if God exists then He gets to choose what is good and what is evil and for you to say He is wrong in his choices makes you supremely arrogant. It would be you arguing that you know better than the person who knows everything because God by definition knows everything. Sorry for run on sentences and even not splitting this up into paragraphs but most of the time I just don't care about grammar online. Feel free to toss my argument aside because of grammar but keep in mind that would be ad hominem which is a fallacy.

[Vlerchan]

Though it seems to me you have already revealed what you really want is autonomous free will meaning you want free will without consequence for anything you might choose to do.It neither says nor implies this anywhere in her post(s).

The rest is some of the most obvious and horrible strawman-ing I've read on this board. This point is interesting though:

And if God exists then He gets to choose what is good and what is evil and for you to say He is wrong in his choices makes you supremely arrogant.The bible is a truly awful source of morality; borderline-batshit-crazy in parts. Here's a great example:

"This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" 1 Samuel 15:3.

I personally find genocide (and infanticide) wrong regardless of the Lord Almighty stance on such is. You?

[Hallie]

No my only intent was to establish whether or not you want free will? Though it seems to me you have already revealed what you really want is autonomous free will meaning you want free will without consequence for anything you might choose to do. And well that is nothing but a childish view of the world. There is cause and effect. So everything we do has a consequence. You want the freedom to do what you want but face no consequence. You even want to use the excuse that most are children who just didn't know any better. The Bible tried to tell people a better way to behave but they choose to ignore it. No i am afraid ignorance is not and can not be an excuse. People know what the right things to do are but they actively choose to do evil. And if God exists then He gets to choose what is good and what is evil and for you to say He is wrong in his choices makes you supremely arrogant. It would be you arguing that you know better than the person who knows everything because God by definition knows everything. Sorry for run on sentences and even not splitting this up into paragraphs but most of the time I just don't care about grammar online. Feel free to toss my argument aside because of grammar but keep in mind that would be ad hominem which is a fallacy.

I like your point; it shows me that you are intelligent, but I want to be clear with you that I am not asking for autonomous free will. Yes, it is true that I think burning your children for eternity is a bit harsh for doing one bad deed in life. All I'm saying is that the punishment is unjust, not that there shouldn't be a punishment. For example, when your child makes a mess of the house, you send them to a time out until dinner time. This gives them time to think about what they've done and come to the conclusion that they were wrong, and so they can learn from it and do better later on in life. But in hell, you can never escape, no matter how much you are sorry for what you did. There is no redemption. In god's eyes, there is only good and evil. I see much more to the human species. I don't think that everything is so black and white, but that there are shades of gray. And just because you've done a bad thing, does that necessarily make you a bad person? All I'm saying is that it seems unfair for god to punish his own children and cause them agony for an eternity. Think about that for a second. An eternity. A whole day, burning in agonizing pain would be horrible. A year, inhuman. a thousand, unbelievable. How about a million? and a billion? a trillion? a hundred trillion? ten hundred trillion? Not even. None of these lengths of time come close. Can you imagine? Being tortured non stop for an eternity? Does that sound like an all loving, forgiving god to you?
Listen, I very much enjoy debating with you. I would like to continue, because you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and I am looking to understand. I always try to keep an open mind. I was wondering if you could answer this question for me: Why christianity? Why do you choose to be a christian? I am assuming that you think all other religions are false, yes? So why do you think christianity is the true religion? What makes christianity more valid than all the other thousands of religions that have existed during the course of history?

I'm sorry if I came off a bit rude. I'm sorry if I offended you. I am just very passionate about this subject and would like to share my views. And I want you to know that disliking the beliefs is not the same thing as disliking the person, just like hating the sin is different than hating the sinner :)

[DarkOmega]

atheism is not a religion . neither Agnosticism. they are religious views

[rogoshtalmour]

It neither says nor implies this anywhere in her post(s).

The rest is some of the most obvious and horrible strawman-ing I've read on this board. This point is interesting though:

The bible is a truly awful source of morality; borderline-batshit-crazy in parts. Here's a great example:

"This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" 1 Samuel 15:3.

I personally find genocide (and infanticide) wrong regardless of the Lord Almighty stance on such is. You?

Your premise is flawed. You find the idea of genocide and infanticide wrong regardless of God's stance on it. But you have to carry that argument to its logical conclusion. If God does exist and He being a perfect being by definition then if He chooses to wipe out a certain people group He must be right in doing so. For you to say otherwise is simply putting yourself in His place, which is of course what the first sin was to begin with. Everything you have just said reveals that you are rebelling against God. God is perfect good. God is also sovereign. Those that go against God are evil by definition. The only reason any of us think otherwise is because of our fallen sin nature. I include myself in that statement because yes there have been times when I have had my doubts too about his actions both in history and even sometimes today I have to ask myself why He allows this or that to happen. Ultimately I realize most of what He allows to happen that is bad is because He is allowing Human free will. I have to check myself when I question Him though. How can I a mere human who has a limited vision of things presume to know better than God. Also if you think the Amalekites were just normal happy go lucky people you are dead wrong. I seem to recall the Amalekites (along with many other people groups back then) committed child sacrifice. It is funny people cry out today asking why God allows this or that evil act and yet when God takes a stance against evil and punishes it people cry out and call him evil for doing so. He can't really win in some peoples eyes can he? To those who choose to rebel against Him no matter what He does they will see it as wrong. I for one am happy to let Him do what He thinks is best rather than what I think is best. That is where my faith comes in.

[rogoshtalmour]

I like your point; it shows me that you are intelligent, but I want to be clear with you that I am not asking for autonomous free will. Yes, it is true that I think burning your children for eternity is a bit harsh for doing one bad deed in life. All I'm saying is that the punishment is unjust, not that there shouldn't be a punishment. For example, when your child makes a mess of the house, you send them to a time out until dinner time. This gives them time to think about what they've done and come to the conclusion that they were wrong, and so they can learn from it and do better later on in life. But in hell, you can never escape, no matter how much you are sorry for what you did. There is no redemption. In god's eyes, there is only good and evil. I see much more to the human species. I don't think that everything is so black and white, but that there are shades of gray. And just because you've done a bad thing, does that necessarily make you a bad person? All I'm saying is that it seems unfair for god to punish his own children and cause them agony for an eternity. Think about that for a second. An eternity. A whole day, burning in agonizing pain would be horrible. A year, inhuman. a thousand, unbelievable. How about a million? and a billion? a trillion? a hundred trillion? ten hundred trillion? Not even. None of these lengths of time come close. Can you imagine? Being tortured non stop for an eternity? Does that sound like an all loving, forgiving god to you?
Listen, I very much enjoy debating with you. I would like to continue, because you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and I am looking to understand. I always try to keep an open mind. I was wondering if you could answer this question for me: Why christianity? Why do you choose to be a christian? I am assuming that you think all other religions are false, yes? So why do you think christianity is the true religion? What makes christianity more valid than all the other thousands of religions that have existed during the course of history?

I'm sorry if I came off a bit rude. I'm sorry if I offended you. I am just very passionate about this subject and would like to share my views. And I want you to know that disliking the beliefs is not the same thing as disliking the person, just like hating the sin is different than hating the sinner :)

You have to understand God desires that NONE should perish however he allows you to make a choice you can choose to obey him and spend an eternity in heaven with him or you can choose (AND MAKE NO MISTAKE IT IS A CHOICE) to spend eternity apart from him ie Hell. There are two kinds of people in this world those who say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done."

Now to your question. Did you know every major world religion has a story of a great flood? In fact most cultures have one as well. This suggests a common history for all mankind. Christianity is by far the most documented religion in history. We have more evidence for the life and actions of Jesus Christ than we do for Socrates. In fact there are still theories that Socrates never lived that He was just a made up teacher created by Plato for Plato to demonstrate his own ideas. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years on across 3 different continents by over 40 different authors all from different walks of life including a doctor, cupbearer, fisherman, prime minister, military general, etc. and each of them told the same story overall. They spoke of a personal relationship with the living God. The Bible as a whole is really just a single story namely God's plan of salvation for all mankind. Jesus Christ is that salvation, He is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. Now it's been said Jesus has to be 1 of 3 things. He was either a liar, a lunatic, or He was who He said He was. C.S. Lewis wrote about that you should check out his writings. Also Josh McDowell writes about it in his book More than A Carpenter. He also has a book called Answers to Tough questions and the The New evidence that demands a verdict. That last one is really great it presents a lot of historical evidence for the Bible and Jesus. Josh McDowell started off as an atheist and was challenged by some of his friends at college to search for the truth. He started his journey trying to find a way to disprove the Bible, Christ, and God. He ended up becoming a Christian instead. He is not the only one with a story like that either. If you really studied up on this you would see so many people the world over have had their lives changed and changed for the better because of Jesus. Not just because of Christians helping them either with clothes and food and such although that is a great thing too. That is another reason I choose Christianity over the other religions. No other religion out there has done more to aid humanity in general than Christianity. I know what you're thinking didn't Christianity also cause a lot of wars. Dr. Walter Martin another Christian apologist asked a history professor once to research how many people died in all the religious wars throughout history. I think they only went back to Jesus's time but still it was counting the crusades and all. They came up with a number of about 3 million. Did you know the philosophies of Karl Marx and Nietzche influenced Russia and Germany a lot in the early 1900's and are indirectly responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. They held atheistic philosophies by the way. Certainly Stalin was an atheist. Another reason I am a Christian instead of say a Muslim is well no other religion actually offers hope in this dark world. Even Islam the only sure way to get to heaven is by killing others. You can do everything else right in accordance with the Koran but Allah may just turn you away on a whim and say no you may not enter heaven. The only way to get to heaven is to kill others in the name of Allah which is why so many terrorists have been muslim. They are trying to earn their way into heaven. Christianity on the other hand specifically says you can not earn your way to heaven. You can not get to heaven with works. Instead you must accept the gift of Christs sacrifice and have faith in Him. Now in doing so you will also end up doing good works by default but those good works are not what get you into heaven. Ya know in the beginning God created the Garden and us and gave us choice and He knew before He even created us that we would at some point make the wrong choice and sin would enter the world. If not Adam and Eve then someone down the line would have done it. So even before He made us He also designed a plan of salvation for us. He knew we would mess up and He would have to save us. It is up to us to accept that free gift though.
There is a lot more I could say on this an other subjects but it would be a lot to read. Instead try checking out the authors i mentioned. Also R.C. Sproul and Walter martin have podcasts. Walter martin is deceased but you can still find the podcasts. Those two have taught me a lot. The information is out there sometimes you just need a little help finding it. The Bible also says "seek and you will find." Sometimes all it takes is a person to open their heart and honestly seek God and He will answer. Keep in mind He answers in his own timing not ours.

[Vlerchan]

snip.You're touching on a major problem I have with many religions and what they cause - this being the most neutral term I could think of -their adherents to do: defer their morality to character X or book Y or Deity Z; adopt unthinkingly, unquestionably the views of some apparently 'benevolent' authority - generally an alien one; one supposedly incomprehensible to its subjects (and thus impossible to question); above them. You seem the perfect example of this thinking: you didn't answer my question, didn't tell me what you think about both genocide and infanticide, but rather told me that it was God's will.

Those that go against God are evil by definition.Being labelled 'evil' for moving against infanticide (and genocide) is certainly a new one, anyway.

I seem to recall the Amalekites (along with many other people groups back then) committed child sacrifice.The Amalekites - as far as I'm aware - were entirely fictional and I've encountered not a single reference towards them outside of the bible; within the bible I've also encountered no reference of them committing child sacrifice - God orders David - or Saul; maybe both. I forget - to murder them all because they once attacked the Jewish people; God wanted revenge, simply. (On a side note: I distinctly remember God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (?) in Genesis; it'd be rather hypocritical to murder an entire nation of people for such a 'crime' then in that case, wouldn't it?)

Though it's interesting that you would try to defend infanticide (not to mention genocide) with allegations of infanticide against the defenders; that actually only makes it worse. It's nonsensical, frankly; why murder the children of the child-murderers; what does that actually achieve?

(AND MAKE NO MISTAKE IT IS A CHOICE)There's millions upon millions of people who will never come into contact with the ideas of Christianity - nomadic, isolationist tribal groups, for example. They've no choice.

Did you know the philosophies of Karl Marx and Nietzche influenced Russia and Germany a lot in the early 1900's and are indirectly responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. They held atheistic philosophies by the way. Certainly Stalin was an atheist.The teachings of the bible - and other theistic texts - have influenced hundreds of states throughout history - and by your reasoning then: billions of deaths.

[nklarke]

Atheism+Agnosticism=40% very impressive. I'm not but I respect them.

[Hallie]

You have to understand God desires that NONE should perish however he allows you to make a choice you can choose to obey him and spend an eternity in heaven with him or you can choose (AND MAKE NO MISTAKE IT IS A CHOICE) to spend eternity apart from him ie Hell. There are two kinds of people in this world those who say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done."

Now to your question. Did you know every major world religion has a story of a great flood? In fact most cultures have one as well. This suggests a common history for all mankind. Christianity is by far the most documented religion in history. We have more evidence for the life and actions of Jesus Christ than we do for Socrates. In fact there are still theories that Socrates never lived that He was just a made up teacher created by Plato for Plato to demonstrate his own ideas. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years on across 3 different continents by over 40 different authors all from different walks of life including a doctor, cupbearer, fisherman, prime minister, military general, etc. and each of them told the same story overall. They spoke of a personal relationship with the living God. The Bible as a whole is really just a single story namely God's plan of salvation for all mankind. Jesus Christ is that salvation, He is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. Now it's been said Jesus has to be 1 of 3 things. He was either a liar, a lunatic, or He was who He said He was. C.S. Lewis wrote about that you should check out his writings. Also Josh McDowell writes about it in his book More than A Carpenter. He also has a book called Answers to Tough questions and the The New evidence that demands a verdict. That last one is really great it presents a lot of historical evidence for the Bible and Jesus. Josh McDowell started off as an atheist and was challenged by some of his friends at college to search for the truth. He started his journey trying to find a way to disprove the Bible, Christ, and God. He ended up becoming a Christian instead. He is not the only one with a story like that either. If you really studied up on this you would see so many people the world over have had their lives changed and changed for the better because of Jesus. Not just because of Christians helping them either with clothes and food and such although that is a great thing too. That is another reason I choose Christianity over the other religions. No other religion out there has done more to aid humanity in general than Christianity. I know what you're thinking didn't Christianity also cause a lot of wars. Dr. Walter Martin another Christian apologist asked a history professor once to research how many people died in all the religious wars throughout history. I think they only went back to Jesus's time but still it was counting the crusades and all. They came up with a number of about 3 million. Did you know the philosophies of Karl Marx and Nietzsche influenced Russia and Germany a lot in the early 1900's and are indirectly responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. They held atheistic philosophies by the way. Certainly Stalin was an atheist. Another reason I am a Christian instead of say a Muslim is well no other religion actually offers hope in this dark world. Even Islam the only sure way to get to heaven is by killing others. You can do everything else right in accordance with the Koran but Allah may just turn you away on a whim and say no you may not enter heaven. The only way to get to heaven is to kill others in the name of Allah which is why so many terrorists have been muslim. They are trying to earn their way into heaven. Christianity on the other hand specifically says you can not earn your way to heaven. You can not get to heaven with works. Instead you must accept the gift of Christs sacrifice and have faith in Him. Now in doing so you will also end up doing good works by default but those good works are not what get you into heaven. Ya know in the beginning God created the Garden and us and gave us choice and He knew before He even created us that we would at some point make the wrong choice and sin would enter the world. If not Adam and Eve then someone down the line would have done it. So even before He made us He also designed a plan of salvation for us. He knew we would mess up and He would have to save us. It is up to us to accept that free gift though.
There is a lot more I could say on this an other subjects but it would be a lot to read. Instead try checking out the authors i mentioned. Also R.C. Sproul and Walter martin have podcasts. Walter martin is deceased but you can still find the podcasts. Those two have taught me a lot. The information is out there sometimes you just need a little help finding it. The Bible also says "seek and you will find." Sometimes all it takes is a person to open their heart and honestly seek God and He will answer. Keep in mind He answers in his own timing not ours.

I love all of the information you provided and your arguments are very valid. Although, there is one thing I would like to get out of the way--Karl Marx, Nietzsche, and Stalin (although it is debatable as to whether Stalin was an atheist) did not commit those crimes because they were atheists. There are many atheists (including myself) who are shocked and against the horrible things they have done, as many christians feel about the crusades. However, the crusades are a result of religious belief. The things that Stalin, Marx, and Nietzsche did were not because they were atheists, but simply because they were bad people. Being in an atheist alone doesn't put that kind of hatred in your heart. I appreciate much of what you have said, and I will gladly check out the information you said would be helpful.
I was wondering about a certain of your beliefs personally (because christians all over the world differ in this). Do you believe that the amount of good in a person is based upon their amount of faith? Let's say you have an atheist who is a very good person and who loves to help people out just because it is the right thing to do, and he wants to do good in the world. Would he go to hell because he didn't believe in god? And what about people who were born before christianity and believed in Zeus? Will they go to hell because they never had the chance to believe in the Christian god? And what about the people in provincial villages where they never have a chance to see the outside world? They are many places in Africa where the people have never been outside of their villages, and have never even seen a Bible or know anything about it. What will happen to them?

[King_of_Hearts]

I like your point; it shows me that you are intelligent, but I want to be clear with you that I am not asking for autonomous free will. Yes, it is true that I think burning your children for eternity is a bit harsh for doing one bad deed in life. All I'm saying is that the punishment is unjust, not that there shouldn't be a punishment. For example, when your child makes a mess of the house, you send them to a time out until dinner time. This gives them time to think about what they've done and come to the conclusion that they were wrong, and so they can learn from it and do better later on in life. But in hell, you can never escape, no matter how much you are sorry for what you did. There is no redemption. In god's eyes, there is only good and evil. I see much more to the human species. I don't think that everything is so black and white, but that there are shades of gray. And just because you've done a bad thing, does that necessarily make you a bad person? All I'm saying is that it seems unfair for god to punish his own children and cause them agony for an eternity. Think about that for a second. An eternity. A whole day, burning in agonizing pain would be horrible. A year, inhuman. a thousand, unbelievable. How about a million? and a billion? a trillion? a hundred trillion? ten hundred trillion? Not even. None of these lengths of time come close. Can you imagine? Being tortured non stop for an eternity? Does that sound like an all loving, forgiving god to you?
Listen, I very much enjoy debating with you. I would like to continue, because you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and I am looking to understand. I always try to keep an open mind. I was wondering if you could answer this question for me: Why christianity? Why do you choose to be a christian? I am assuming that you think all other religions are false, yes? So why do you think christianity is the true religion? What makes christianity more valid than all the other thousands of religions that have existed during the course of history?

Hmm... where to start.
God doesn't send you to Hell for one little bad thing you do. He forgives. He is like a loving parent. If you ask for forgivness, you will receive it. But continually murdering or stealing and not asking for forgivness? That will land you in Hell. God loves us and provides all for us. But when you sin, he reaches out to you to repent. If you ignore his call, you will land in Hell. Ever heard "Repent, and thou shalt be saved"? He does forgive. He doesn't just say "Oh, you sinned? To Hell you go." Hell is reserved for the purest of evils. He tries to help you as much as he can, as much as he can. And I will finish by answering the last few questions you asked. I was brought up christian, I didnt choose it. I do not believe all other religions are false. I believe all other religions are capturing their own aspect of God. If the religion has more than one God, then they are showing every side of God. I respect all other religions. And I even enjoy learning about them.

[Hallie]

Hmm... where to start.
God doesn't send you to Hell for one little bad thing you do. He forgives. He is like a loving parent. If you ask for forgivness, you will receive it. But continually murdering or stealing and not asking for forgivness? That will land you in Hell. God loves us and provides all for us. But when you sin, he reaches out to you to repent. If you ignore his call, you will land in Hell. Ever heard "Repent, and thou shalt be saved"? He does forgive. He doesn't just say "Oh, you sinned? To Hell you go." Hell is reserved for the purest of evils. He tries to help you as much as he can, as much as he can. And I will finish by answering the last few questions you asked. I was brought up christian, I didnt choose it. I do not believe all other religions are false. I believe all other religions are capturing their own aspect of God. If the religion has more than one God, then they are showing every side of God. I respect all other religions. And I even enjoy learning about them.

I like your version of god :) Different people see him differently, but your version of him seems to be loving, and I like that. There are many people who say they believe in a loving god, then preach hatefully in god's word. I personally don't think that you can know for sure who you are dealing with and what he is like until you are sitting there with him and you hear his words straight from his lips. Otherwise, things get twisted easily. The Bible is like a game of telephone. Even if there is a god, I believe that the Bible would be an unreliable source, seeing as it came from oral tradition, passed down for centuries before it was written down. This causes changes in the stories, and by the time people got around to writing it, the story was probably completely different from what it was originally. I still think that following the Bible can be a very noble thing, if you use it right. I think the Bible has many beautiful, inspirational quotes. Still, you must use it wisely and not take it literally because there are many horrible things in there as well that are at best morally problematic, and at worst, morally obscene.
I also appreciate your pluralist viewpoint (all paths lead to the same mountain kinda thing). Most christians I've met have not been so open-minded as to think that all other religions are true in their own way as well. Every religious person I've talked to in person believes that their religion is the only true one, and that all other people who don't believe the same thing will go to hell (except they said it in a nicer way of course). I know that there are christians who have that pluralist viewpoint like yourself, I've just never met one in person. I wish there were more pluralists like you in the world! It would make life and everyone's individual spiritual journeys much easier :)

[SecretlyKnown]

I'm Maronite Catholic

[hockeyfan]

Catholic

[Croconaw]

I'm an atheist!

[Aajj333]

Pastafarianism aka kingdom of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Tayoh]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the Christian God because it's based completely off the bible, which has ran into so many contradictions based on the things we've discovered through science.

[trustn01]

I am a staunch (did I use that word correctly) Catholic, but I do believe in evolution.

[Vlerchan]

I am a staunch (did I use that word correctly) Catholic, but I do believe in evolution.

Are you against abortion in all cases excluding (maybe) their existing an identifiable and grave threat against the mothers life?

Do you oppose LGBT rights - specifically their right to marry?

Do you oppose the use of contraception?

Do you oppose extra-martial sex - sex outside marraige?

Do you oppose divorce?

Do you support defined gender roles?[1]

If you responded affirmatively to five or six of the above propositions then it's probably correct to label yourself a Staunch or Conservative Catholic. If you responded affirmatively to two to four of the above propositions then it'd probably be more correct to label yourself a Moderate Catholic. If you responded affirmatively to less than two (zero or one) of the propositions then it's probably correct to label yourself a Liberal Catholic. This is all politically-speaking mind you, though I'd expect it to transfer over.

[1]: The retention of Patriarchy is still a big part of Catholicism right?

[trustn01]

Are you against abortion in all cases excluding (maybe) their existing an identifiable and grave threat against the mothers life?

Do you oppose LGBT rights - specifically their right to marry?

Do you oppose the use of contraception?

Do you oppose extra-martial sex - sex outside marraige?

Do you oppose divorce?

Do you support defined gender roles?[1]

If you responded affirmatively to five or six of the above propositions then it's probably correct to label yourself a Staunch or Conservative Catholic. If you responded affirmatively to two to four of the above propositions then it'd probably be more correct to label yourself a Moderate Catholic. If you responded affirmatively to less than two (zero or one) of the propositions then it's probably correct to label yourself a Liberal Catholic. This is all politically-speaking mind you, though I'd expect it to transfer over.

[1]: The retention of Patriarchy is still a big part of Catholicism right?

Hmmm, according to you I am a moderate Catholic. Ah, well, let's not have a fight over this.

[Vlerchan]

Hmmm, according to you I am a moderate Catholic. Ah, well, let's not have a fight over this.
I wrote that 'survey' up in under a minute. I wouldn't take it to heart. If you want to declare as a staunch Catholic then by all means go ahead - don't let that deter you.

[trustn01]

I wrote that 'survey' up in under a minute. I wouldn't take it to heart. If you want to declare as a staunch Catholic then by all means go ahead - don't let that deter you.

Nah, I'm not. I respect your opinion, though.

[JacobIN]

It is my personal belief that no religion is wrong. Its how you are a follower of it. Almost every religion wants you to be a good person and love all, but that is rarely done. (myself included) I look at it this way, if you are a good person, you live your life good, spread whatever religion you have in a constructive way without harming anybody, and you don't condemn any one kind of people or religion, then you are really doing the essence of faith.

And, even if we who believe in a religion are wrong, then we have still lived good lives and made the world a better place.

[JamesSC]

I'm an athiest.

[Sydneyy]

I'm Calvinist

[Kurgg]

I believe in God and Jesus as son of God, but I am unfortunatly too young to separate from the church, as I think the Evangelic-Lutheran Church of Finland as a church who modifies it's teaching to the willing of the State. They even collect a "church tax"!

[Dalcourt]

I was baptized and I'm official a Catholic, but I strongly believe in Voodoo religion as most of my family does.

[xandyx]

I was born and raised Lutheran Christian.

[ninja789]

agnostic

[phuckphace]

I'm atheist but also sympathetic towards religion, especially Christianity. while I don't accept the narrative of the Bible and find the existence of a higher power very unlikely, I do recognize that religion plays an important role in society and helps keep many people in line. I think atheists and other non-religious people should quit being so hostile to religion because without it, a lot of people out there simply aren't cut out to go through life without believing in something. whether or not you accept the teachings, you have to admit that religion does give people hope, something that is becoming harder to find these days.

[thatgothgirluknow]

my relighan is kinda confusing im christain and wiccan i have allot of beliefs with both relighans

[rprsupercar]

I believe in God and the Bible's the ultimate truth. No questions asked and I'm really surprised that there are so many who don't even believe God exists. Not everything in this world can be explained scientifically.

[Bmble_B]

To be honest, I really don't have a set religion. All I know is that my family and I believe in God and Jesus Christ. We don't go to church or anything. But at the same time no matter how ridiculous it may seem to me, I would never criticize someone for having their own beliefs. I find that very naive and disrespectful, considering the fact that all religions have some ounce of truth in them(I know someone said this already). Shoot, if someone worshiped a beetle god, I wouldn't judge, thats just the type of person I am :D

[mrgreenbreeze04]

I do believe in a one true God, which is the Father, as been stated in the Holy Bible. I'm an Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) member, and I am proud of it. Our church will be celebrating its 100th year of reestablishment this year, July 27, 2014 to be exact. And for me, having, believing, and doing the true faith is necessary to attain salvation and must be the foremost priority of us here on Earth, to serve and glorify God forever.

[Gamma Male]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in religion, spirituality, astrology, or superstition They're all equally ridiculous.

[Babiole]

I'm Catholic. I believe in God, and I attend church occasionally. I observe Lent as well. However, I don't agree with Catholic teachings on homosexuality. Most Catholics are pretty liberal, actually - at least where I live. I've noticed that French Catholics seem to be a lot more liberal than their American counterparts. Not many Catholics here go to Catholic schools, for example - the government doesn't fund them.

I'm tolerant of all faiths.

[Swaffle]

I fell into other: Celtic Pagan.

[BuryYourFlame]

my relighan is kinda confusing im christain and wiccan i have allot of beliefs with both relighans
I would encourage you to question why you believe what you believe and observe the writings of both of these beliefs. While Wicca does not necessarily exclude the possibility of Christianity, Christianity is very specific that "the only way to the Father is through [Jesus]" and has a range of other verses to the meaning that other religions are not accepted at best and a sin at worst ("thou shall have no gods before me"). It makes it very clear that you are either are a Christian or you are not.

I believe in God and the Bible's the ultimate truth. No questions asked and I'm really surprised that there are so many who don't even believe God exists. Not everything in this world can be explained scientifically.
Which parts are entirely factual and historically true? Is all of Genesis completely true? Are all of the contradictions in the bible true at the same time?
I'm very surprised at the "no questions asked" part. You need to constantly question why and what you believe. It is how we grow as people and as a society.
No, not absolutely everything can be explained by science at the moment. This, however, is not a valid argument for the existence of a God or the validity of the Bible. As I mentioned to someone the other day when discussing psychics/mediums etc.; the apparent lack of a logical explanation is not reason for an illogical explanation.

[Capto]

"There is no deity but one God, Muhammad [PBUH] is the messenger of God".

[backjruton]

For me, the thing that came up recently that extremely pissed me off is the meat thing in Subways. If I have to stop getting my favourite sub because they're not happy with what I eat... I love salami, big obsession, they shouldn't be able to speak out about this and change the other country's ideals when another religion was mainly based in there first. I don't really care how much this offends some people, I'm sick of keeping things in my head clogged up sometimes. I am against all religion, no question, because I find something stupid with all of them. I would much rather worry about my own mental problems than the problems with religion and all the ridiculous things that come with them.

[CutYouDown]

I am a Christian Methodist, which is under the Protestant branch of Christianity.

[Jack982]

I'm Roman Catholic.

[gothy]

Agnostic. raised Christian.

[QUOTE=BuryYourFlame;2774373]I would encourage you to question why you believe what you believe and observe the writings of both of these beliefs. While Wicca does not necessarily exclude the possibility of Christianity, Christianity is very specific that "the only way to the Father is through [Jesus]" and has a range of other verses to the meaning that other religions are not accepted at best and a sin at worst ("thou shall have no gods before me"). It makes it very clear that you are either are a Christian or you are not.

/QUOTE]

Why cant she have both. You can ignore parts you dont believe in for one and believe in the rest. I mean religion is just created by humans. I dont believe in anything more than the other. It is more interesting when people create their own or combine two. Though it does not make sense to some people exactly how certain combinations can be made, i think one really needs to know what someone believes in order to understand the combination. :)
you see i was raised christian but then as i learned more and more about world religions and religious intolerance, i personally chose to separate myself from organized religion.

this is just my view on this. i support everyone who is religious and everyone who isnt. :)

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[BuryYourFlame]

Why cant she have both. You can ignore parts you dont believe in for one and believe in the rest. I mean religion is just created by humans. I dont believe in anything more than the other. It is more interesting when people create their own or combine two. Though it does not make sense to some people exactly how certain combinations can be made, i think one really needs to know what someone believes in order to understand the combination.
It's very hard to theologically justify having two religions. Once you start ignoring some parts of a theological text that you just don't like you have to question why you would believe any part of it at all if it can be dismissed so easily. Either the bible is true, or the bible is false. If it's true then worship of things other than the 'one true god' would be a sin. If it's false then there isn't really much to justify using it as part of a different mix of religions.

[Miserabilia]

Agnostic. raised Christian.



Agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist?
You should specifiy though by the context of your post I'm assuming agnostic theist.

It's very hard to theologically justify having two religions. Once you start ignoring some parts of a theological text that you just don't like you have to question why you would believe any part of it at all if it can be dismissed so easily. Either the bible is true, or the bible is false. If it's true then worship of things other than the 'one true god' would be a sin. If it's false then there isn't really much to justify using it as part of a different mix of religions.

This.

[brooklynchic]

I personally believe in God, I believe he has a name which is Jehovah and its found in Psalms 83:18, I also believe in his son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins so that we can have the hope of everlasting life. Jehovah gives us free will because he doesn't want to force anyone to serve Him if they don't want to. I believe that prayer truly works. There has been times in which I was going through a hard time and by praying I was able to get through it. I don't look down on people who don't believe in God, because thats just wrong and judgemental. The bible gives practical advice, even to young people. In 1 Cor. 15:33 it says "Do not be misled, bad association spoils useful habits." Basically saying, those people who are a bad influence on you will take away your good qualities.
Many people read the bible, but don't realize how much wisdom it has in it. You don't have to be a Christian to read the bible.

[gothy]

Agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist?
You should specifiy though by the context of your post I'm assuming agnostic theist.

Agnostic theist

[flappybird]

Believe in whatever you want to, but please don't criticize others.

[Miserabilia]

Believe in whatever you want to, but please don't criticize others.

What is this no criticy policy?
I mean I think I know what you mean, I think you're trying to say don't hurt people or hurt people or insult people because of their beleifs.
However if there's no criticy there's no progress.

[Lovelife090994]

Believe in whatever you want to, but please don't criticize others.

Agreed. I was raised with that mindset. Let people have whatever faith they choose, talk about if they want to, but never criticize the person for it or belittle them.

[flappybird]

What is this no criticy policy?
I mean I think I know what you mean, I think you're trying to say don't hurt people or hurt people or insult people because of their beleifs.
However if there's no criticy there's no progress.

Criticizing beliefs and doctrines is healthy but criticizing faith is foolish.

[Gamma Male]

Criticizing beliefs and doctrines is healthy but criticizing faith is foolish.

Why's that?

[flappybird]

Why's that?

I mean criticizing someone else's faith when you believe in a god yourself is foolish.

[Gamma Male]

I mean criticizing someone else's faith when you believe in a god yourself is foolish.

What if I don't believe in a god myself? Then am I allowed to criticise other's faith? :lol:

[flappybird]

What if I don't believe in a god myself? Then am I allowed to criticise other's faith? :lol:

What would you criticize it for? If anything, believing in god has a positive psychological impact.

[Gamma Male]

What would you criticize it for? If anything, believing in god has a positive psychological impact.

I criticise it because it's illogical and detrimental to society as a whole. It encourages scientific illiteracy, blind faith, and opposition to social progress. Making homosexuality illegal in the middle east and parts of Africa, discouraging the use of condoms and subsequently spreading aids in Africa, clashes and wars between christians and muslims, hate crimes against gays worldwide, reduction of women to slaves in parts of the middle east, all of that stuff is caused by religion.

[phuckphace]

I criticise it because it's illogical and detrimental to society as a whole. It encourages scientific illiteracy, blind faith, and opposition to social progress. Making homosexuality illegal in the middle east and parts of Africa, discouraging the use of condoms and subsequently spreading aids in Africa, clashes and wars between christians and muslims, hate crimes against gays worldwide, reduction of women to slaves in parts of the middle east, all of that stuff is caused by religion.

:rolleyes:

is there really a need to run through this worn and tattered laundry list of all the petty grievances you have with religion every time someone says they're religious? he's right, faith gives people hope and that hope benefits them in a lot of ways (positive psychological impact, as he put it). believe me, "muh logic", "muh progress" "muh homosexuality" etc., they've heard it all from twelve dozen hard-as-fuck Internet Atheists before. you should probably drop your anti-religion crusade (heh) and actually think about why people hold faith and why it's so important to them. you obviously don't have to believe any of it, but constantly demonizing it in this way makes you look angry and childish. and guess what? raving about it on the Internet isn't going to change anything and as we speak, the WASPs are continuing to breed and teach their children about Jesus and there's nothing you or anybody else can do about it. might as well deal.

btw you need to get better examples. Stalin the atheist was personally responsible for what...30 to 40 megadeaths? brb writing a long angsty post on the Internet about how evil atheists are.

[Gamma Male]

:rolleyes:

is there really a need to run through this worn and tattered laundry list of all the petty grievances you have with religion every time someone says they're religious? he's right, faith gives people hope and that hope benefits them in a lot of ways (positive psychological impact, as he put it). believe me, "muh logic", "muh progress" "muh homosexuality" etc., they've heard it all from twelve dozen hard-as-fuck Internet Atheists before. you should probably drop your anti-religion crusade (heh) and actually think about why people hold faith and why it's so important to them. you obviously don't have to believe any of it, but constantly demonizing it in this way makes you look angry and childish. and guess what? raving about it on the Internet isn't going to change anything and as we speak, the WASPs are continuing to breed and teach their children about Jesus and there's nothing you or anybody else can do about it. might as well deal.

btw you need to get better examples. Stalin the atheist was personally responsible for what...30 to 40 megadeaths? brb writing a long angsty post on the Internet about how evil atheists are.

I disagree.

[Miserabilia]

:rolleyes:

is there really a need to run through this worn and tattered laundry list of all the petty grievances you have with religion every time someone says they're religious? he's right, faith gives people hope and that hope benefits them in a lot of ways (positive psychological impact, as he put it). believe me, "muh logic", "muh progress" "muh homosexuality" etc., they've heard it all from twelve dozen hard-as-fuck Internet Atheists before. you should probably drop your anti-religion crusade (heh) and actually think about why people hold faith and why it's so important to them. you obviously don't have to believe any of it, but constantly demonizing it in this way makes you look angry and childish. and guess what? raving about it on the Internet isn't going to change anything and as we speak, the WASPs are continuing to breed and teach their children about Jesus and there's nothing you or anybody else can do about it. might as well deal.

btw you need to get better examples. Stalin the atheist was personally responsible for what...30 to 40 megadeaths? brb writing a long angsty post on the Internet about how evil atheists are.

Your reply is completely unnescecairy.
Gamma male answered why we should criticize faith.
He gave several reasons to criticize faith.
He's not saying he's going to change or stop it, he's juts criticizing it.
You seem to be completely opposed to that entire post,
so do you actualy think nobody should criticize beleifs and faiths, or are you just trying to be against it just to be against it??

[Vlerchan]

Phuckphace's point is that most theists don't give a shit.

Which is entirely true.

Stalin the atheist was personally responsible for what...30 to 40 megadeaths?
Stalin was responsible for about 15 - 20 million.

Though, few (if any) of them stemmed from his atheism.

I criticise it because it's illogical[1] and detrimental to society as a whole[2]. It encourages scientific illiteracy[3], blind faith[4], and opposition to social progress[5].
[1]: I can guarantee you that most people hold an illogical value or ten.

[2]: In your opinion.

[3]: No it doesn't.

[4]: I always find this incredibly ironic when put across by atheists.

[5]: You'll find 'progress' to be an incredibly subjective term.

Making homosexuality illegal in the middle east and parts of Africa, discouraging the use of condoms and subsequently spreading aids in Africa, clashes and wars between christians and muslims, hate crimes against gays worldwide, reduction of women to slaves in parts of the middle east, all of that stuff is caused by religion.

tl;dr: religion is bad because fundamentalists.

[Horatio Nelson]

I disagree.

So telling people that what they believe in is a farce and a lotta bullshit helps social progress?

[Miserabilia]

So telling people that what they believe in is a farce and a lotta bullshit helps social progress?

- He never did say those things
- He was giving reasons to why we should be able to criticize people's beleifs and faith. If you have a problem, tackle those reasons.

[Gamma Male]

So telling people that what they believe in is a farce and a lotta bullshit helps social progress?

Phuckphace's point is that most theists don't give a shit.

Which is entirely true.


Stalin was responsible for about 15 - 20 million.

Though, few (if any) of them stemmed from his atheism.


[1]: I can guarantee you that most people hold an illogical value or ten.

[2]: In your opinion.

[3]: No it doesn't.

[4]: I always find this incredibly ironic when put across by atheists.

[5]: You'll find 'progress' to be an incredibly subjective term.



tl;dr: religion is bad because fundamentalists.

Somebody said we shouldn't criticise the faith of others, and I disagreed. I can and do criticise faith because I think any belief system that relies on faith instead of reason and logic is incredibly flawed and thus worthy of criticism. That's it.

[phuckphace]

it's all fine and dandy to promote the ideals of logic and reason. I don't have an issue with that.

what I do have a problem with is when the Internet Atheist Inquisition Kru declares that religion should be thrown out on the sole basis that faith is illogical, while completely disregarding the enormous net benefits that organized religion and faith have for humanity. I see this same type of narrow-minded thinking in libertarians, who don't understand (and refuse to consider) why some people do things that don't involve making money. even as an atheist I find this desire for rigid and emotionless, black-and-white rationality in all areas of our lives unhealthy.

besides, our existence is pointless and accidental anyway, so there's no harm in worshiping a non-existent deity. it's surely no more pointless than anything else we do with our meaningless lives, right?

[Vlerchan]

I can and do criticise faith because I think any belief system that relies on faith instead of reason and logic is incredibly flawed and thus worthy of criticism.
And, I'm saying that's not an all-to-valid line of reasoning to take given the fact that there is very few people capable of developing a world view around pure logic, and fewer who do.

[Gamma Male]

And, I'm saying that's not an all-to-valid line of reasoning to take given the fact that there is very few people capable of developing a world view around pure logic, and fewer who do.
I'm not demanding everybody adapt my worldview, I'm merely posting my opinions on the internet. I think faith is illogical, and ultimately detrimental to human society. That's it. I'm not demanding everybody adapt to or agree with my opinion, I'm just stating it on a forum designed specifically so people can post their opinions.
it's all fine and dandy to promote the ideals of logic and reason. I don't have an issue with that.

what I do have a problem with is when the Internet Atheist Inquisition Kru declares that religion should be thrown out on the sole basis that faith is illogical, I never said it should be "thrown out". I just said I think relying on faith is illogical, and billions of people all relying on faith to make their decisions is dangerous.
while completely disregarding the enormous net benefits that organized religion and faith have for humanity.
I'm well aware that believing in a deity can have some positive psychological effects, but if nobody believed in God there would be other places for people to go to to feel a sense of belonging and to confide in someone. Other than that, you're joking, right? Organized religion is good for society? Are you high, or just fucking with me?
I see this same type of narrow-minded thinking in libertarians, who don't understand (and refuse to consider) why some people do things that don't involve making money.
I'm not a libertarian anymore, you can stop going off topic to attack them now.
Even as an atheist I find this desire for rigid and emotionless, black-and-white rationality in all areas of our lives unhealthy.
Really? I don't see a problem with everyone acting rationally all the time. To me, that sounds like a perfect society.
besides, our existence is pointless and accidental anyway, so there's no harm in worshiping a non-existent deity. it's surely no more pointless than anything else we do with our meaningless lives, right?

Can everyone stop putting words in my mouth? It's getting annoying. I never said our lives were pointless or meaningless, I said they have no inherent meaning. What that means is nobody is just born with a purpose. What meaning or purpose your life has is up to you. If you want the meaning of your life to be to marry and have a family, or to become the President of Venezuela, or own a casino, or win a nobel prize, or just be really happy all the time, that's up to you.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not demanding everybody adapt my worldview[1], I'm merely posting my opinions on the internet[2]:. I think faith is illogical[3], and ultimately detrimental to human society[4]. That's it. I'm not demanding everybody adapt to or agree with my opinion[5], I'm just stating it on a forum designed specifically so people can post their opinions[6].
[1]: I never said you were.

[2]: For what ends?

[3]: The main problem I have is that you a) Presume this is a meaningful criticism and b) Don't actually hold logically consistent views yourself.

[4]: Cool. Feel free to demonstrate how without pointing to fundamentalists.

[5]: Fantastic.

[6]: I'm aware of this.

I just said I think relying on faith is illogical[7], and billions of people all relying on faith to make their decisions is dangerous[8].
[7]: It is. But it being illogical doesn't necessarily make it bad. I do lots of illogical things.

[8]: Feel free to expand here.

I'm well aware that believing in a deity can have some positive psychological effects, but if nobody believed in God there would be other places for people to go to to feel a sense of belonging and to confide in someone[9]. Other than that, you're joking, right? Organized religion is good for society?[10]
[9]: I'm doubtful that people would find an as successful anchor.

[10]: I don't actually see the problem in it.

Really? I don't see a problem with everyone acting rationally all the time. To me, that sounds like a perfect society.
I like getting drunk sometimes. I'm slowly killing myself but it's fun.

The world would be a very boring place if everyone acted rationally the entire time.

[Miserabilia]

[7]: It is. But it being illogical doesn't necessarily make it bad. I do lots of illogical things.




Illogical decision making and using illogical decision making to participate in the rules of pretty much anything is bad. For example we can all vote on certain matters, and if the majority uses illogical decision making to do so (relying on faith) this will effect the outcome in a most likely negative way, or atleast in an illogical outcome. Sounds weird but I hope you see what I mean.

[Vlerchan]

Illogical decision making and using illogical decision making to participate in the rules of pretty much anything is bad. For example we can all vote on certain matters, and if the majority uses illogical decision making to do so (relying on faith) this will effect the outcome in a most likely negative way, or atleast in an illogical outcome. Sounds weird but I hope you see what I mean.
This is contradictory.

An example of how illogical reasoning can be good is when I vote to give away some of my hard-earned money to poor people (i.e., taxation and redistribution policies). There's no logical basis to give away my money to people I don't know and hold no connection with, but if we refer to my emotions then it makes perfect sense.

[Miserabilia]

This is contradictory.

An example of how illogical reasoning can be good is when I vote to give away some of my hard-earned money to poor people (i.e., taxation and redistribution policies). There's no logical basis to give away my money to people I don't know and hold no connection with, but if we refer to my emotions then it makes perfect sense.

No, that is actualy a logical decision based on information you know. You make a choice based on your own beleifs, not on the beleifs based on your faith.

Also, how were the two bolded texts contradicting each other? Or do you mean that simply saying so is contradictory? If so , see above.

[Gamma Male]

[1]: I never said you were.

[2]: For what ends?

[3]: The main problem I have is that you a) Presume this is a meaningful criticism and b) Don't actually hold logically consistent views yourself.

[4]: Cool. Feel free to demonstrate how without pointing to fundamentalists.

[5]: Fantastic.

[6]: I'm aware of this.


[7]: It is. But it being illogical doesn't necessarily make it bad. I do lots of illogical things.

[8]: Feel free to expand here.


[9]: I'm doubtful that people would find an as successful anchor.

[10]: I don't actually see the problem in it.


I like getting drunk sometimes. I'm slowly killing myself but it's fun.

The world would be a very boring place if everyone acted rationally the entire time.
If you feel that the benefits of getting drunk outweigh the consequences, that's the logical thing to do. I think your views on logic are very misguided. You seem to think that in a world where everyone acted rationally all the time, there would be no fun and everyone would just work and study all the time. This isn't the case at all.

Now, lets look back at what I said. Somebody claimed that you shouldn't criticise the faith of others. I disagreed. I think faith is worthy of criticism because it is an irrational belief. Do you disagree that faith is an irrational belief?

[Gamma Male]

This is contradictory.

An example of how illogical reasoning can be good is when I vote to give away some of my hard-earned money to poor people (i.e., taxation and redistribution policies). There's no logical basis to give away my money to people I don't know and hold no connection with, but if we refer to my emotions then it makes perfect sense.

There's no logical reason for altruism? I disagree. There are plenty of logical reasons for altruism. I think your views on logic are very misguided. You seem to be confusing rationality with some selfish Ayn Rand style Objectivism. That's ridiculous.

Giving your money away to poor people is sometimes logical because it helps them get back on their feet and ultimately, reduces the amount of suffering in the world. Reducing the amount of suffering in the world is a logical thing to do because suffering is bad.

[Vlerchan]

No, that is actualy a logical decision based on information you know.
It's not a logical decision. Handing over money to people I don't know (anonymously) goes against my self-interest: it hurts me to be altruistic.

You make a choice based on your own beleifs, not on the beleifs based on your faith.
I believe that my exterminating all Irish people I will be doing the world a favour.

Also, how were the two bolded texts contradicting each other?
You said that making illogical decision was bad but later changed it to making logical decisions was most likely resulting in something negative (i.e., bad). I see this as a contradiction.

---

If you feel that the benefits of getting drunk outweigh the consequences, that's the logical thing to do.
I'd accept this if our opinions weren't influenced usually by our emotions. They are though. In my opinion the consequences of binge drinking are outweighed by the benefits. It's also might be my opinion (disclaimer: this time it's not) that the consequences of overdosing on cocaine are outweighed by the benefits. By your logic, which I don't consider logic, this is a perfectly logical formulation because I believe it's a perfectly logical formulation (see: circular reasoning).

Furthermore, logic is objective. In this case we might dispute the idea that the consequences of binge drinking are outweighed the benefits: now, if we were deducting this logically we could decide objectively which is better (to binge drink or not to binge drink) but because we're not deducting this logically and are rather going on our emotion-influenced opinions it is thus impossible to reach this objective logical conclusion. tl;dr (because that's explained awfully): If there's room for differing opinions surrounding a conclusion then it's by definition not the logical conclusion, because the logical conclusion would be objectively true.

I think your views on logic are very misguided.
Heh.

Do you disagree that faith is an irrational belief?
No. But I'm not disputing this.

I'm disputing the idea that something being illogical is a meaningful criticism.

I think your views on logic are very misguided.
Hehx2.

You seem to be confusing rationality with some selfish Ayn Rand style Objectivism.
Ayn Rand was correct in stating that moving against your own self-interest is illogical.

She was just incorrect to believe that people were logical beings to begin with.

Reducing the amount of suffering in the world is a logical thing to do because suffering is bad.
You believe that suffering is bad. Suffering in itself is not inherently bad. It's actually illogical to believe so.

Your argument falls flat on that idea: it seeks to prove an action logical by taking the assumption that the outcome of that same action is logical.

[Miserabilia]

It's not a logical decision. Handing over money to people I don't know (anonymously) goes against my self-interest: it hurts me to be altruistic.
[1]



You said that making illogical decision was bad but later changed it to making logical decisions was most likely resulting in something negative (i.e., bad). I see this as a contradiction.
[2]

---



[1]: That doesn't make the decision illogical. Altruism can be based on logical decision making. Doing something in the interest of others can be because you want to secure a future for the people you care for, or many other logical reasons;
it wouldn't be illogical untill you did it just because you felt like doing something random or in the name of something which existence you have no certainty of.

[2]: I'm using an objective argument to support my opinion ( "bad" ), not contradicting myself. In this case "most likely negative results" (or whatever it was I said) was to support my view of it being "bad".

[Vlerchan]

That doesn't make the decision illogical.
If something is not done in your best interest then it is illogical.

Altruism can be based on logical decision making.
Altruism (n): disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others or behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

You literally cannot act both altruistically and in your own self-interest by definition.

Doing something in the interest of others can be because you want to secure a future for the people you care for, or many other logical reasons.
Acting altruistically for your own benefit (inc. emotional benefit - you want to see them close to you have a nice future) is not acting altruistically by definition of what acting altruistically is. Donating money to people you don't know or care for would be altruistic as you don't benefit from it. This is want voting for taxation and redistribution policies forces.

In this case "most likely negative results" (or whatever it was I said) was to support my view of it being "bad".
It's contradictory because 'is' is definite whilst 'probably is' is not definite.

Semantics.

[douglaseverett1998]

Christian - Baptist

[Miserabilia]

If something is not done in your best interest then it is illogical. [1]


Altruism (n): disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others or behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

You literally cannot act both altruistically and in your own self-interest by definition. [2]


Acting altruistically for your own benefit (inc. emotional benefit - you want to see them close to you have a nice future) is not acting altruistically by definition of what acting altruistically is. Donating money to people you don't know or care for would be altruistic as you don't benefit from it. This is want voting for taxation and redistribution policies forces.


It's contradictory because 'is' is definite whilst 'probably is' is not definite. [3]

Semantics.

[1]: Could you please explain to me how this is appearently a fact and not a question of philosophy?

[2]: The moment you choose to do something logicaly, you are doing it in your own interest, because everything you do is eventualy for yourself. Just because it's not in your own interest doesn't mean it can't indirecty be to make yourself feel good; how many times haven't we all heard the frase "Helping others makes me happy"?

[3]: Me saying it's "bad" is my opinion. I can say it "is" bad, even though it would be better to use "I think it is". But I think it is bad, and my opinion is true to me. However on real life results I am not going to say it "is" bad, because bad is subjective; I can however say it will most likely end up with negative results, or something else less specific, etc.

[Gamma Male]

It's not a logical decision. Handing over money to people I don't know (anonymously) goes against my self-interest: it hurts me to be altruistic.
Going against your self interest is logical if it helps others and reduces the total amount of suffering in the world. It doesn't matter if it's your suffering or not.


I'd accept this if our opinions weren't influenced usually by our emotions. They are though. In my opinion the consequences of binge drinking are outweighed by the benefits. It's also might be my opinion (disclaimer: this time it's not) that the consequences of overdosing on cocaine are outweighed by the benefits. By your logic, which I don't consider logic, this is a perfectly logical formulation because I believe it's a perfectly logical formulation (see: circular reasoning).
Whether or not binge drinking occasionally is logical or not depends on how much you enjoy it. If occasionally binge drinking brings you great joy and positive emotions then I see no reason why it wouldn't be logical to occasionally binge drink because, depending on the person and the situation, the benefits(fun, socialization, etc) might outweigh the consequences.
Furthermore, logic is objective. In this case we might dispute the idea that the consequences of binge drinking are outweighed the benefits: now, if we were deducting this logically we could decide objectively which is better (to binge drink or not to binge drink) but because we're not deducting this logically and are rather going on our emotion-influenced opinions it is thus impossible to reach this objective logical conclusion. tl;dr (because that's explained awfully): If there's room for differing opinions surrounding a conclusion then it's by definition not the logical conclusion, because the logical conclusion would be objectively true.

I agree that for every decision we must make, there is ultimately one choice that is the most logical, but due to emotion and human error that one logical decision is oftentimes impossible to reach or realize.


No. But I'm not disputing this.

I'm disputing the idea that something being illogical is a meaningful criticism.
Something being illogical is a perfectly meaningful criticism. I try to make all of my decisions based off of logic and rationality, and when I don't and I let emotion or irrationallity get in the way I welcome criticism.


Ayn Rand was correct in stating that moving against your own self-interest is illogical.
I disagree. Could you expand on why you think this is true?
She was just incorrect to believe that people were logical beings to begin with.
If by "logical being" you mean someone who makes all of their decisions based on logic, then of course human beings aren't logical beings. But we can still use logic to a certain extant, and in my opinion we should always strive toward making our decisions as logical as possible.

You believe that suffering is bad. Suffering in itself is not inherently bad. It's actually illogical to believe so.
Suffering isn't bas as a whole, because it helps us survive by telling us what's dangerous and what isn't. But the feeling of suffering, the sensation itself, is always bad. If a feeling is negative or bad it's a form of suffering. If a feeling is positive or joyful it isn't a form of sufferingl.[/QUOTE]

[Vlerchan]

Could you please explain to me how this is appearently a fact and not a question of philosophy?
Is their a rational justification for deliberately going out of ones way to harm oneself?

The moment you choose to do something logicaly, you are doing it in your own interest, because everything you do is eventualy for yourself.
Okay. I accept your argument that altruism can't exit.

Would you say the urge to 'feel good about oneself' is more based in emotion or logic? Why do you 'feel good about yourself'?

Just because it's not in your own interest doesn't mean it can't indirecty be to make yourself feel good.
I'm getting confused here.

Are you now changing your mind and saying that people do things out of pure altruism and not out of their own self-interest? If so then we are back to people acting illogically.

But I think it is bad, and my opinion is true to me.
This implies that logic and what is logical is subjective.

By this logic, literally anything, from persecuting Irishmen to overdosing on cocaine, can be considered logical.

---

Going against your self interest is logical if it helps others and reduces the total amount of suffering in the world. It doesn't matter if it's your suffering or not.
It's logical if it helps others when it reduces the amount of suffering in the world in your opinion.

There's nothing inherently good about helping people when it reduces the amount of suffering in the world.

Whether or not binge drinking occasionally is logical or not depends on how much you enjoy it.
Would you agree with the statement: "It is logical because I believe it is logical"?

I agree that for every decision we must make, there is ultimately one choice that is the most logical, but due to emotion and human error that one logical decision is oftentimes impossible to reach or realize.
I agree with this statement.

Something being illogical is a perfectly meaningful criticism.
I'll get back to this when we're done with some of the other things I'm saying.

I still disagree however.

Could you expand on why you think this is true?
I can't see a rational justification as to why deliberately going against ones own self-interest can be rational.

But the feeling of suffering, the sensation itself, is always bad.
Suffering (n): the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

I disagree with the idea that if someone enjoys pain or hardship or duress then it is not suffering: if someone takes gratification out of suffering that doesn't mean that they are suffering (by the objective meaning of the word) any less. Whether or not suffering is a good or bad thing depends on the individual and the opinion as held by the individual.

Further, sexual sadists enjoy inflicting suffering - and thus enjoy the idea of suffering - but they might not necessarily enjoy suffering themselves

[Miserabilia]

Is their a rational justification for deliberately going out of ones way to harm oneself? [1]


Okay. I accept your argument that altruism can't exit.

Would you say the urge to 'feel good about oneself' is more based in emotion or logic? Why do you 'feel good about yourself'? [2]


I'm getting confused here.

Are you now changing your mind and saying that people do things out of pure altruism and not out of their own self-interest? If so then we are back to people acting illogically. [3]


This implies that logic and what is logical is subjective.

By this logic, literally anything, from persecuting Irishmen to overdosing on cocaine, can be considered logical. [4]



[1]: Ofcourse there is, it just depends on your definition of rational. There can be any logical reasoning behind harming oneself for any reason.

[2]: To feel good about your self is emotional; however doing something in order to feel good about yourelf is a logical action.
We do it to support ourselves.

[3]: a: No I'm not. I'm saying when people seem to do purely altruistic things, they are always doing it to please themselves or a certain thought mentally. Philophicaly speaking true altriusm doesn't exist, if the act has to be selfless mentally too.
b: Altruism is not by definition illogical, I have yet to see you explain to me exactly how selflessnes directly means illogical, while everything can be part of a greater good.

[4]: No. I was saying doing illogical things was 'bad". I should have said 'I think it's bad" just to clarify that it's my opinion, but since 'bad" is a subjective word anyways I didn't feel it was nescecairy. I was stating my opinion and then giving a justification for it.

[Vlerchan]

Ofcourse there is, it just depends on your definition of rational[1]. There can be any logical reasoning behind harming oneself for any reason[2].
[1]: Logical.

[2]: I can't think of any logical basis, i.e., a basis that doesn't appeal to emotion, to deliberately disadvantage oneself.

I'm saying when people seem to do purely altruistic things, they are always doing it to please themselves or a certain thought mentally.
I've had second thoughts about this.

I believe that individuals engage in altruistic behaviour mainly in the name of a 'greater good', etc. and not so much in the name of ego: whilst the need to feel good about oneself might exist, I feel that its subordinate to, and thus not as influential as, ones want to serve the 'greater good': since the latter illogical want factors in more than the former logical want, I feel that people are not acting as much (i.e., fully) in their own self-interest as you might be making out - and thus are acting illogically.

Philophicaly speaking true altriusm doesn't exist, if the act has to be selfless mentally too.
I'd argue that pure altruism doesn't exist, but altruism itself can be a major factor in an individuals decision making process.

Altruism is not by definition illogical, I have yet to see you explain to me exactly how selflessnes directly means illogical, while everything can be part of a greater good.
There's no such (objective) thing as the 'greater good' and thus acting in its name is illogical.

Again, I ask for a logical basis in which one would deliberately disadvantage oneself, gaining neither a return or a full-return on their actions. It seems to me that any such action would be necessarily influenced by emotion.

I was stating my opinion and then giving a justification for it.
I was making the point that your opinion is irrelevent to whether something is logical or not.

---

I agree that for every decision we must make, there is ultimately one choice that is the most logical, but due to emotion and human error that one logical decision is oftentimes impossible to reach or realize.
I rethought this and realised I don't agree with this.

It implies an objective, but unknown, 'good' and 'bad' exist. I disagree.

[Miserabilia]

[1]: Logical.

[2]: I can't think of any logical basis, i.e., a basis that doesn't appeal to emotion, to deliberately disadvantage oneself. [1]


I've had second thoughts about this.

I believe that individuals engage in altruistic behaviour mainly in the name of a 'greater good', etc. and not so much in the name of ego: whilst the need to feel good about oneself might exist, I feel that its subordinate to, and thus not as influential as, ones want to serve the 'greater good': since the latter illogical want factors in more than the former logical want, I feel that people are not acting as much (i.e., fully) in their own self-interest as you might be making out - and thus are acting illogically. [2]


I'd argue that pure altruism doesn't exist, but altruism itself can be a major factor in an individuals decision making process.


There's no such (objective) thing as the 'greater good' and thus acting in its name is illogical. [3]

Again, I ask for a logical basis in which one would deliberately disadvantage oneself, gaining neither a return or a full-return on their actions. It seems to me that any such action would be necessarily influenced by emotion. [4]


I was making the point that your opinion is irrelevent to whether something is logical or not.

---



[1]: There can be plenty. You can deliberatly disadvantage yourself because you know it will help others, or to achieve something else , etc.

[2]: Even if they aren't acting for themselves, that doesn't make it illogical. Evolutionairy speaking we could definetly have completely altruistic traits that disadvantage ourselves but help our species or children survive.

[3]: Sorry, I didn't mean "The greater good", I just meant a greater good, whichever that might be in the situation.

[4]: Does that make it illogical? I know emotional actions and arguments are not logical, but acting in a certain way to allow yourself to feel an emotion can be based on logical decision making.

[Bull]

I am a born again Christian. I am a member of a Southern Baptist church. I agree with the basic beliefs of Baptists. However, I do not agree with the way I hear a lot of our preacher interpret those beliefs. My pastor is hung up on lust, thinks boys and girls should not be allowed to swim together, thinks playing cards of any kind is a sin, believes that drinking and smoking is a sin, etc. And he is so homophobic it is funny. I like going to church, do so every sunday and we sit together as a family. I really like that. I just ignore the rantings of a guy who is not living mentally in the 21st century.

[Vlerchan]

There can be plenty. You can deliberatly disadvantage yourself because you know it will help others, or to achieve something else , etc.
I'm not asking for just reasons (which it seems you have given me). I realise that there's reasons that individuals disadvantage themselves.

I'm asking for a logical basis, i.e., one that does not appeal to emotion, for altruism: there's no logical basis, i.e., a basis that does not preclude emotion, to 'help others' (feel free to offer one), and disadvantaging oneself to achieve something else sounds likes it an actions being commited in ones self-interest.

Evolutionairy speaking we could definetly have completely altruistic traits that disadvantage ourselves but help our species or children survive.
I don't study biology, and I don't pretend to know about evolution all to well, but isn't the base of it all to survive?: evolutionary speaking, I don't believe we'd develop pure altruistic traits, because disadvantaging oneself in favour of another would be counterproductive to our own survival.

I believe that if we develop altruistic traits, see: Homo Emiritus (I think?), then it will be because such traits aid in our own personal survival - and thus such traits won't actually be altruistic, as I defined it, at all

Sorry, I didn't mean "The greater good", I just meant a greater good, whichever that might be in the situation.
It's illogical to define a greater good, because an objective 'good' or 'bad' doesn't exist.

In such a case, ones actions would only be logical as long as everyone presumed that the outcome was also logical - or in the name of 'the greater good'

I know emotional actions and arguments are not logical, but acting in a certain way to allow yourself to feel an emotion can be based on logical decision making.
I'm presuming that altruism, the want to do self-defined good, plays a larger role than ego, the want to feel good, in ones decision-making process, because I've gathered that from personal experience. If it was a case of an action being commited entirely on the basis of ego, then I might be inclined to agree, but I don't believe this occurs all too often, if ever.

Since altruism, defined as: commiting a selfless action, an action not in ones self-interest or bringing one equal gain, is drawn from emotion, and thus illogical, I would label any action (or belief - left-liberalism, for example) influenced by altruism illogical.

[Miserabilia]

I'm not asking for just reasons (which it seems you have given me). I realise that there's reasons that individuals disadvantage themselves.

I'm asking for a logical basis, i.e., one that does not appeal to emotion, for altruism: there's no logical basis, i.e., a basis that does not preclude emotion, to 'help others' (feel free to offer one), and disadvantaging oneself to achieve something else sounds likes it an actions being commited in ones self-interest. [1]


I don't study biology, and I don't pretend to know about evolution all to well, but isn't the base of it all to survive?: evolutionary speaking, I don't believe we'd develop pure altruistic traits, because disadvantaging oneself in favour of another would be counterproductive to our own survival.

I believe that if we develop altruistic traits, see: Homo Emiritus (I think?), then it will be because such traits aid in our own personal survival - and thus such traits won't actually be altruistic, as I defined it, at all


It's illogical to define a greater good, because an objective 'good' or 'bad' doesn't exist.

In such a case, ones actions would only be logical as long as everyone presumed that the outcome was also logical - or in the name of 'the greater good'


I'm presuming that altruism, the want to do self-defined good, plays a larger role than ego, the want to feel good, in ones decision-making process, because I've gathered that from personal experience. If it was a case of an action being commited entirely on the basis of ego, then I might be inclined to agree, but I don't believe this occurs all too often, if ever.

Since altruism, defined as: commiting a selfless action, an action not in ones self-interest or bringing one equal gain, is drawn from emotion, and thus illogical, I would label any action (or belief - left-liberalism, for example) influenced by altruism illogical.

Well we've gone really off track with this whole thing but I totaly see what you mean :)

I would like to mention there can definetly be evolution traits not soly based on one's own survival but on the survival of the bloodline or tribe or group or whatever it's called.
For example we could have, (Maybe we did, I haven't studied evolution enough to know, but I certainly will in the future), developed systems that don't nescecairly aide ourselves but can actualy kill us in certain situations, giving other superiours more survival guaranteeing the eventual survival of the species,
so in other words for a greater good, the greater good in this case being the survival of the species, which makes sense because after all our bodies are a collection of tiny organisms which can no longer live without each other.

[Vlerchan]

Well we've gone really off track with this whole thing but I totaly see what you mean.
Ah. Cool. c:

I would like to mention there can definetly be evolution traits not soly based on one's own survival but on the survival of the bloodline or tribe or group or whatever it's called.
Interesting. I'll look into it.

[Gamma Male]

[1]: Logical.

[2]: I can't think of any logical basis, i.e., a basis that doesn't appeal to emotion, to deliberately disadvantage oneself.

There's no such (objective) thing as the 'greater good' and thus acting in its name is illogical.

Again, I ask for a logical basis in which one would deliberately disadvantage oneself, gaining neither a return or a full-return on their actions. It seems to me that any such action would be necessarily influenced by emotion.

I just have to address this. Lets say you have X amount of money, and you want to spend it on a gaming console that, if bought, would provide you with many hours of joy and fun. But you instead decide to donate it to help feed starving children or something. When those children receive that food, they're likely to experience a plethora of positive emotions and have many of their negative emotions(hunger, in this case) cured. And I think you would agree that the amount of suffering that is alleviated when the children receive the food is greater than the amount alleviated when you buy a gaming console. It stands to reason then that giving away your money was a logical decision because it decreased the total amount of suffering in the world more than if you had kept it. Who's suffering it is that's decreased is irrelevant.

[Vlerchan]

I just have to address this. Lets say you have X amount of money, and you want to spend it on a gaming console that, if bought, would provide you with many hours of joy and fun. But you instead decide to donate it to help feed starving children or something. When those children receive that food, they're likely to experience a plethora of positive emotions and have many of their negative emotions(hunger, in this case) cured. And I think you would agree that the amount of suffering that is alleviated when the children receive the food is greater than the amount alleviated when you buy a gaming console. It stands to reason then that giving away your money was a logical decision because it decreased the total amount of suffering in the world more than if you had kept it. Who's suffering it is that's decreased is irrelevant.
I believe that it is the right or moral thing to do. If we presume that it is objectively the right thing to do then I would be in agreement that it's the logical thing to do - but it would be illogical to start making such assumptions.

---

On a side note (unrelated to this thread - but I don't want to start another), do you consider it moral to threaten someone at gunpoint to hand over their hard-earned cash in order to alleviate another individual's suffering.

[Gamma Male]

I believe that it is the right or moral thing to do. If we presume that it is objectively the right thing to do then I would be in agreement that it's the logical thing to do - but it would be illogical to start making such assumptions.

---

On a side note (unrelated to this thread - but I don't want to start another), do you consider it moral to threaten someone at gunpoint to hand over their hard-earned cash in order to alleviate another individual's suffering.

No, because if that were to happen on a large scale the terror and fear created by the constant threat of suffering would most likely outweigh any suffering alleviated with the stolen money.

[Vlerchan]

No, because if that were to happen on a large scale the terror and fear created by the constant threat of suffering would most likely outweigh any suffering alleviated with the stolen money.
Hmm.. interesting.

That's effectively what supporting taxation and redistribution policies entails: we've just been socialised to accept it as correct and moral.

[bobbi]

I do believe in god and Jesus and even though terrible tragedies have happed that did not change what or who I believe in and in my personal opinion everything happens for a certain reason.

[Leprous]

I'm actually born Catholic and raised in a religious family, my grandparents are very religious, and then you have me, the family atheist.

[Kurgg]

I'm kinda agnostic right now, but I am interested about ancient Finnish religion.

[clay morrow]

i am a scientologist

[dame]

I consider myself spiritual, but not religious.

[Gamma Male]

i am a scientologist

Seriously?

[clay morrow]

Seriously?

yes i am

[Ethe14]

I'm a Protestant Christian, I believe quite strongly in my faith but I do see some flaws in religon.

[lumiadots]

i am agnostic. my parents are both christian but they never raised me with strict christian beliefs. they never took me to church or made me pray or read the bible or anything. that's why i never really believed in a god while growing up, because it was never pressed into me.

after searching and learning about a bunch of different religions, i decided to label myself as 'agnostic. agnosticism is basically where you have no belief OR disbelief in any god/deities out there. my firm belief is that religion is here for people to fall back on, for all mankind to turn to when they need help most and provide a sense of security and comfort. however, i truly believe we don't know FOR SURE if any god(s) really exist. then again, who knows if any do or not? there's just simply no way to be sure until we actually die.

[Gamma Male]

yes i am

I'm genuinely interested, were you raised that way or have you converted?

Have you seen the South Park episode about scientology? How much of it is true?

[Karkat]

i am agnostic. my parents are both christian but they never raised me with strict christian beliefs. they never took me to church or made me pray or read the bible or anything. that's why i never really believed in a god while growing up, because it was never pressed into me.

after searching and learning about a bunch of different religions, i decided to label myself as 'agnostic. agnosticism is basically where you have no belief OR disbelief in any god/deities out there. my firm belief is that religion is here for people to fall back on, for all mankind to turn to when they need help most and provide a sense of security and comfort. however, i truly believe we don't know FOR SURE if any god(s) really exist. then again, who knows if any do or not? there's just simply no way to be sure until we actually die.

Well I do have to agree MOSTLY, I'd just like to add that there is also agnostic theism, and agnostic atheism, both of which differ a little bit from what you describe.

I'm an agnostic theist. I do tend to err on the side of belief that there is potential for a higher power to exist, I do pray, I try to be somewhat spiritual, hell- I even read the Bible at times- but I believe that it is impossible to know. I don't exactly believe in an afterlife. I'm what you'd call "hopeful", but not set on the belief in one.

I try to respect the views of gnostics, but I tend to find those views (if not those people) very irritating. Imo gnostics can be extremely arrogant about their beliefs, and that's why I like agnosticism. From what I've seen, agnostics tend to be pretty chill about the views of others, not HAVING to prove their point, and so on.

[lumiadots]

Well I do have to agree MOSTLY, I'd just like to add that there is also agnostic theism, and agnostic atheism, both of which differ a little bit from what you describe.

I'm an agnostic theist. I do tend to err on the side of belief that there is potential for a higher power to exist, I do pray, I try to be somewhat spiritual, hell- I even read the Bible at times- but I believe that it is impossible to know. I don't exactly believe in an afterlife. I'm what you'd call "hopeful", but not set on the belief in one.

I try to respect the views of gnostics, but I tend to find those views (if not those people) very irritating. Imo gnostics can be extremely arrogant about their beliefs, and that's why I like agnosticism. From what I've seen, agnostics tend to be pretty chill about the views of others, not HAVING to prove their point, and so on.

i think i just described the basics of agnosticism, then. i didn't know that there was branches off of agnosticism like agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. thank you for telling me about that. (: after reading through what you wrote, i also think i lean more towards agnostic theism, because i do believe that there is a possibility of a supreme being, just that there's no way of knowing. but i completely agree with your other points on agnosticism.

[Miserabilia]

i think i just described the basics of agnosticism, then. i didn't know that there was branches off of agnosticism like agnostic theist and agnostic atheist. thank you for telling me about that. (: after reading through what you wrote, i also think i lean more towards agnostic theism, because i do believe that there is a possibility of a supreme being, just that there's no way of knowing. but i completely agree with your other points on agnosticism.

Well simple "agnosticism" itself can't really exist; agnosticism is simply not knowing. Once can KNOW their god exist, or KNOW that no god exists, or one can beleive in a god but they don't KNOW, or one can not beleive in any gods but don't KNOW.
Etc.
:P

[coltonaustin]

Christian Baptist. My advice is, if you can afford it, take a trip to BigStuf (http://www.bigstuf.com) camps. It's 1 week during the summer and can completely change your life. My church had 8 baptisms the week we went: it just goes to show how God and the Holy Spirit can move in great ways.

P.S. I love the music.

[Gottaloveaginger14]

Im a christian, a methodist to be specific

[Exocet]

Christian.

[Spence97]

I was born and raised Catholic, but recently religion just has made less and less sense to me, and for some other reasons I now consider myself atheist.

[ChaseDakoda]

How much more do I have to go through?

I was molested

Today a friend of mine same age 14 drowned.

All this in a month

I am a christain and beleave in the bilble fully, But God is a Good God, is satain doing this to test my faith?

If so why isn't god in my opion helping me? I feel nothing!

My dad lost his job and they removed a cancer thing on my moms neck. All this Month

Please as per Kyur4 mentioned please do not critasize me

[GoGoDiego]

Belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

[conner74]

throughout my life I've always said im Anglican and Christian but i never really picked up a bible or prayed or went to church. until a couple of months when u realised that this was wrong and so i decided that i would take baby steps towards becoming a better Christian

[micheal951]

I am athiest, and have been for as long as I can remember. Most of my family on my mother's side are catholic (excluding my mother herself though) and from day one, I was always given the choice to choose what I wanted to believe. And as soon as I was able and allowed to use a computer with access to the internet I have always studied wildlife, and from there evolution, and to me, it makes more sense that things evolve over billions of years rather than one man (?) just making everything. I have never believe in god or any sort or deity, the concept that there is something out there "better" (for want of a better word) that us just does not make any sense at all.

The main thing that annoys (for want of a better word) me about religion is it gives me more questions that it has ever answered, my aunt is extremely religious and has always looked down on me for not believing in her views, and it has caused many arguments with the family as she believes I am going to hell. Yet when I say to her that is impossible as I do not believe in heaven or hell, so how can I go somewhere that does not exist she just responds with "you just will, end of". And that is usually the response I get to almost all my questions I ask to any one who believes. And I would love to know why different religions argue with other religions, because if I understand correctly, the "god" people believe is the some one no matter the religion, just has a different "name"?

[Capitalist14]

Yeah, i'm jewish. but not that religious, i just like having a faith to belong to. I'd agree with you about islam. they are bloody savages. In birmingham there's so many muslim shops and women in burkas. a soldier was butchered on the street by those savages

[Gamma Male]

Yeah, i'm jewish. but not that religious, i just like having a faith to belong to. I'd agree with you about islam. they are bloody savages. In birmingham there's so many muslim shops and women in burkas. a soldier was butchered on the street by those savages

Meanwhile in Palestine......
http://keithpp.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/beaten-palestinian.jpg

[Vlerchan]

(Lol.)

[Islamic People] are bloody savages.
What about the Westernised ones? It's a rather general accusation here isn't it.

[Elliott_hn]

Christianity, but only a very "mild" belief. I'm not like a super Christian or anything. basically I believe in god and juses christ and that's it.

[morsar]

Atheism/Agnosticism aren't religions, but that's definitely where I am.

[nikkissippi121]

I'm a Christian, but only loosely - I believe parts of the Bible are true, but I don't think it's 100% so simply because the events were written years - often decades or centuries - after they really happened. I don't go to church and I don't consider myself to be of any denomination. That being said, I don't have any problem with anyone of any religion (or lack thereof) unless they, specifically are a jerk (but that goes without saying, am I right? :lol:) I will say, though, that religious extremists (Islamic, Judaic, Christian, or otherwise) are often violent, and that is not okay, but this ties more into individuals being jerks than, say, an entire religion or denomination.

[Left Now]

I'm a Christian, but only loosely - I believe parts of the Bible are true, but I don't think it's 100% so simply because the events were written years - often decades or centuries - after they really happened. I don't go to church and I don't consider myself to be of any denomination. That being said, I don't have any problem with anyone of any religion (or lack thereof) unless they, specifically are a jerk (but that goes without saying, am I right? :lol:) I will say, though, that religious extremists (Islamic, Judaic, Christian, or otherwise) are often violent, and that is not okay, but this ties more into individuals being jerks than, say, an entire religion or denomination.

Sounds very logic!Unlike some other opinions which I know in this forum.

[Lovelife090994]

Sounds very logic!Unlike some other opinions which I know in this forum.



I'm a Christian, but only loosely - I believe parts of the Bible are true, but I don't think it's 100% so simply because the events were written years - often decades or centuries - after they really happened. I don't go to church and I don't consider myself to be of any denomination. That being said, I don't have any problem with anyone of any religion (or lack thereof) unless they, specifically are a jerk (but that goes without saying, am I right? :lol:) I will say, though, that religious extremists (Islamic, Judaic, Christian, or otherwise) are often violent, and that is not okay, but this ties more into individuals being jerks than, say, an entire religion or denomination.


I see what you mean, but bottom line is some of these extremists' beliefs are not theirs, they are in their religion and religious book.

[nikkissippi121]

I see what you mean, but bottom is some of these extremists' beliefs are not theirs, they are in their religion and religious book.

Maybe so, but their interpretation of their religious book is a major factor. For example, one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", but some people seem to interpret it as "Thou shalt not kill, unless the other person doesn't agree". Similarly, the Bible is all about how you shouldn't sin and all that - some people take this to mean just what it says - that they, themselves, shouldn't sin - while others take this to an extreme and decide to actively, violently "punish" those they believe have sinned.

[Lovelife090994]

Maybe so, but their interpretation of their religious book is a major factor. For example, one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill", but some people seem to interpret it as "Thou shalt not kill, unless the other person doesn't agree". Similarly, the Bible is all about how you shouldn't sin and all that - some people take this to mean just what it says - that they, themselves, shouldn't sin - while others take this to an extreme and decide to actively, violently "punish" those they believe have sinned.


The Bible says you should not kill, and it also says that those who use it for evil intent or just to hurt others shall be punished. But I'm talking about extremists. Even the Bible has some extreme things in it that go back to the Torah but at least the Bible later speaks against this. Not all religious books with violence speak against it. And terrorists are living out and fulfilling parts saying to kill.

[Left Now]

The Bible says you should not kill, and it also says that those who use it for evil intent or just to hurt others shall be punished. But I'm talking about extremists. Even the Bible has some extreme things in it that go back to the Torah but at least the Bible later speaks against this. Not all religious books with violence speak against it. And terrorists are living out and fulfilling parts saying to kill.

No religious book says kill innocents,better to understand it.

[Lovelife090994]

No religious book says kill innocents,better to understand it.

Actually they do, both the Quran and the Bible has violent texts. I can't erase them.

[Dennis98]

I consider myself as Muslim . But due situation in my family , I am secular muslim , so I believe in all basics of my religion and I read Quran , but I have never go to the mosque to pray , although every muslim should pray 5 times per day , I never pray . That is because my father is Montenegrin Muslim but my mom is Croatian Roman Catholic , so it is pretty uncomfortable to live like that , because I have always to balance on both sides , so because that we never celebrate some religious holiday in my family , but I always celebrate with my father secretly out from my house . I feel really bad because it , I love my religion , but I feel bad because of my mom , she is really trying to make me good man no matter on religion , so I understand her , because it is really hard , so sometimes I feel bad because me and my father celebrate some religious holiday even in secrecy , she never celebrate any of her religious holidays . My father allow her to celebrate , but she never ever celebrated .. I feel even bad because I dont have muslim name , so , my parents wanted to give me some indifferent international name - Dennis ..

[Left Now]

Actually they do, both the Quran and the Bible has violent texts. I can't erase them.

They have violent texts,but they do not order their followers to kill innocent people without any acceptable reason.

[Lovelife090994]

They have violent texts,but they do not order their followers to kill innocent people without any acceptable reason.

Oh I believe they do somewhere. The Quran says how nonbelievers should be killed, and the Bible says how those who do not follow God's law should be killed.

[Left Now]

Oh I believe they do somewhere. The Quran says how nonbelievers should be killed, and the Bible says how those who do not follow God's law should be killed.

Well actually Quran says if nonbelievers want to fight with Muslims,then you have to fight back but not transgress,because God doesn't like transgressors.Killing anyone (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) without any reason in Islam is a crime and will only face one punishment : Death Sentence.

Well,Bible is a book full of peaceful teachings,and I am sure that in this part it is only talking about defense,not killing anyone who doesn't follow God's law.

[Ben_Frost]

Christian, raised in a Baptist home. Though I'm not an extremist who goes around saying or thinking everyone's going to hell or trying to shove my beliefs at everyone I see on the street.

[Lovelife090994]

Well actually Quran says if nonbelievers want to fight with Muslims,then you have to fight back but not transgress,because God doesn't like transgressors.Killing anyone (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) without any reason in Islam is a crime and will only face one punishment : Death Sentence.

Well,Bible is a book full of peaceful teachings,and I am sure that in this part it is only talking about defense,not killing anyone who doesn't follow God's law.

Maybe, and in the Bible and Quran supposedly both speak against the act of killing, hurting someone for being a non-believer, whatever reason not right, and self-righteousness. But in the case of the Quran it has no New Testament to speak out against the violence, and technically the Quran like and unlike the Bible in many ways encourages violence, the extremists are actually living out how Islam is and was centuries ago, whereas Christians were given a New Testament and split from the Jews.

[Left Now]

Maybe, and in the Bible and Quran supposedly both speak against the act of killing, hurting someone for being a non-believer, whatever reason not right, and self-righteousness. But in the case of the Quran it has no New Testament to speak out against the violence, and technically the Quran like and unlike the Bible in many ways encourages violence, the extremists are actually living out how Islam is and was centuries ago, whereas Christians were given a New Testament and split from the Jews.

The extremists even don't know how Islam was in the past,so they cannot live in the way which Islam was.They even do not listen to Quran itself while they are claiming that they are acting according to it.

According to Quran and Shia traditions,Islam has 5 pillars:
1-Monothesim
2-Prophecy
3-Resurrection
4-Sovereignty
5-Leadership

Islam has ordered Muslims to follow teachings of Quran,and one of the teachings of Quran is to listen to "Family of Muhammad" who are simply called "Ahl al Beit",means "Members of the Household".This includes "Sovereignty" and "Leadership".Quran itself is not enough alone,because not all details are mentioned in it.

Quran is a book of general laws but for details,you have to go to "Prophet-line quotes and behavior" and "Members of the Household" and after all of them,to reliable "Faqihs" who are permitted to issue "Fatwas" which are religious commands.For example in the past Muslims were allowed to possess weapons in an Islamic country,but now according to the Fatwas which have been issued by Faqihs,possession of any kind of weapon is not permitted anymore and it is forbidden for Muslims to have weapons,except governmental forces and those who are involved in security and military.

The Members of the household were actually fourteen persons who were Muhammad's daughter Fatima,and her husband Ali,and their sons Hassan and Husein,and after them Husein's descendants to the last of them Mahdi.

Most of those extremists whom now you see them in groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda,believe that they only have to do what is written in Quran in text and follow those priests who believe Quran alone is enough (while they are not even doing what the texts of Quran have ordered them) and no Prophet-line quotes and Members of the Household are needed.It means that they don't recognize "Leadership" and "Sovereignty" as two other pillars of Islam,but even as heretical teachings which have to completely removed.

This is why Shias (especially) and Sunnis who don't agree with them are considered as their arch-enemies and will be slaughtered anywhere they find them.

They are against science,which Quran has ordered exactly in reverse by telling Muslims to search in the universe and study and learn,because learning is one of the ways of absolute praying of God.They believe that everyone has to obey God without thinking about it and otherwise should be killed,while Quran has told there is no forced conversion in religion and people have to accept religions with their hearts and minds and only those who think will get what Islam has to say.

There are many other evidences which prove that extremists are acting exactly against what Quran has told them and not according to it,and this is why majority of Muslim scholars in whole world do not consider them as Muslims,and insist on their immediate destruction.

[Lovelife090994]

The extremists even don't know how Islam was in the past,so they cannot live in the way which Islam was.They even do not listen to Quran itself while they are claiming that they are acting according to it.

According to Quran and Shia traditions,Islam has 5 pillars:
1-Monothesim
2-Prophecy
3-Resurrection
4-Sovereignty
5-Leadership

Islam has ordered Muslims to follow teachings of Quran,and one of the teachings of Quran is to listen to "Family of Muhammad" who are simply called "Ahl al Beit",means "Members of the Household".This includes "Sovereignty" and "Leadership".Quran itself is not enough alone,because not all details are mentioned in it.

Quran is a book of general laws but for details,you have to go to "Prophet-line quotes and behavior" and "Members of the Household" and after all of them,to reliable "Faqihs" who are permitted to issue "Fatwas" which are religious commands.For example in the past Muslims were allowed to possess weapons in an Islamic country,but now according to the Fatwas which have been issued by Faqihs,possession of any kind of weapon is not permitted anymore and it is forbidden for Muslims to have weapons,except governmental forces and those who are involved in security and military.

The Members of the household were actually fourteen persons who were Muhammad's daughter Fatima,and her husband Ali,and their sons Hassan and Husein,and after them Husein's descendants to the last of them Mahdi.

Most of those extremists whom now you see them in groups like ISIL and Al-Qaeda,believe that they only have to do what is written in Quran in text and follow those priests who believe Quran alone is enough (while they are not even doing what the texts of Quran have ordered them) and no Prophet-line quotes and Members of the Household are needed.It means that they don't recognize "Leadership" and "Sovereignty" as two other pillars of Islam,but even as heretical teachings which have to completely removed.

This is why Shias (especially) and Sunnis who don't agree with them are considered as their arch-enemies and will be slaughtered anywhere they find them.

They are against science,which Quran has ordered exactly in reverse by telling Muslims to search in the universe and study and learn,because learning is one of the ways of absolute praying of God.They believe that everyone has to obey God without thinking about it and otherwise should be killed,while Quran has told there is no forced conversion in religion and people have to accept religions with their hearts and minds and only those who think will get what Islam has to say.

There are many other evidences which prove that extremists are acting exactly against what Quran has told them and not according to it,and this is why majority of Muslim scholars in whole world do not consider them as Muslims,and insist on their immediate destruction.

I could have said the same things on Christianity but none of that changes what is in the Bible. What you just said gave me the Western understanding and gloss-over of Islam, but even you admitted that there is violence in the Quran that terrorists are living out. Didn't Muhammad have a less than gracious marriage? You see it in the past and you see it happening now. Are you willing to stop the extremists? What do you do about the extreme views in your religion? You can ignore them but wouldn't that be acting as a hypocrite? Even with me I know the Bible has many flaws and old teachings now outdated but over the years Christianity and Christians have had no choice but to adapt and adopt new ideas which for the better make it where extreme views in God's name are not to be tolerated whatsoever. But of course no one cares about that, they just look at the grime and see some religions as a race and some as a cult.

[Left Now]

I could have said the same things on Christianity but none of that changes what is in the Bible. What you just said gave me the Western understanding and gloss-over of Islam, but even you admitted that there is violence in the Quran that terrorists are living out. Didn't Muhammad have a less than gracious marriage? You see it in the past and you see it happening now. Are you willing to stop the extremists? What do you do about the extreme views in your religion? You can ignore them but wouldn't that be acting as a hypocrite? Even with me I know the Bible has many flaws and old teachings now outdated but over the years Christianity and Christians have had no choice but to adapt and adopt new ideas which for the better make it where extreme views in God's name are not to be tolerated whatsoever. But of course no one cares about that, they just look at the grime and see some religions as a race and some as a cult.

Well,first of all you have to know that most of Muhammad's marriages were political,especially with Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Muhammad was always kind and generous toward his wives not like men who never care about their spouses.Second,what extreme views do you think Islam has and about what?Today's terrorists are acting only according to a really gross philosophy which was established about 100 years ago and at the same time when Saudi Arabia was established : "Wahhabism".

Islam's minor laws are changeable as I said,there are only major laws which can never change.So this means that Islam can change too.

[Lovelife090994]

Well,first of all you have to know that most of Muhammad's marriages were political,especially with Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Muhammad was always kind and generous toward his wives not like men who never care about their spouses.Second,what extreme views do you think Islam has and about what?Today's terrorists are acting only according to a really gross philosophy which was established about 100 years ago and at the same time when Saudi Arabia was established : "Wahhabism".

Islam's minor laws are changeable as I said,there are only major laws which can never change.So this means that Islam can change too.

Islam has many scriptures that have been time and time again lived out now and then against non-believers. Also look at all the crimes need I bring up the Crusades? That affected both histories. And I am referring to the fact that Muhammad married a young underage girl and the fact that in Islam women are property and how in Muslim countries minorities are persecuted if not killed, how you can killed simply for being gay. Where in the Quran does it say to treat all fairly and to treat gays with love? Are we not all people? Why are you justifying terrorist's ideas? If you're not then it is coming across that way. And the "gross" philosophy has yet to die. Islam won't change, it hasn't for hundreds of years.

[Left Now]

Islam has many scriptures that have been time and time again lived out now and then against non-believers.

Non-believers are warned,not threatened.Also,most of times none-believers are referred to 7th century Arab Pagans who were trying to destroy Islam.

I'm sure that Bible and Torah have warned non-believers too,haven't they?

Also look at all the crimes need I bring up the Crusades? That affected both histories.

I really didn't get what you said.

And I am referring to the fact that Muhammad married a young underage girl

Different sources say different things about that girl who was Aisha Bint Abu Bakr but it is completely clear that she was between 13-15 when she gave birth which by standards of those times was not underage.Christians and Jews and Hindus and Zoroastrians used to marry girls between 10-15 in those times and in those areas too.Also,I suggest you to study a little more about Aisha and how she was treated by Muhammad.

and the fact that in Islam women are property

In Islam women are not properties;there is no proof about it neither in Quran neither in Prophet-line quotes.Why do you say they are properties in Islam?

and how in Muslim countries minorities are persecuted if not killed

In Islam,all religions are allowed to be practiced freely and Muslims are ordered by Quran to treat non-Muslims respectively and be fair with them.But they are not allowed to disturb the rest of the societies and try to fight against Islamic Social Laws.Why do you say they are persecuted?Please explain.

how you can killed simply for being gay.

Well,this is something which should be expanded a little more.In Quran,it has never been said to kill Homosexuals,but just has been said that it is a sin.

In Islam,not all homosexuals are ordered to be killed,because it is their private lives and doesn't concern others.But if that person tries to disturb the society by shouting his sexual statues into it where most of the population are against it,well it's not just a sin anymore,it is crime.Let me just say this simply:If a person is homosexual,none of our business and none of our government's;If he tries to shout it in public where most of people are against it,then it means that he is trying to make tensions among people,so the majority simply ask their government to deal with it.

Where in the Quran does it say to treat all fairly and to treat gays with love?

Where in it does it say to treat straights all fairly and with love?Treating people in general with love and fair is ordered by Quran,regardless of their religion,their sexuality and their political and social ideas.

Are we not all people?

We are all people,but don't you agree that if I respect you you have to respect me too?If you respect me and I don't respect you,then we will have a conflict.This is exactly like this.

Why are you justifying terrorist's ideas?

I'm not.

If you're not then it is coming across that way. And the "gross" philosophy has yet to die. Islam won't change, it hasn't for hundreds of years

It has changed.Many of Islamic Social laws have changed throughout centuries,but main pillars haven't.

[Lovelife090994]

Non-believers are warned,not threatened.Also,most of times none-believers are referred to 7th century Arab Pagans who were trying to destroy Islam.

I'm sure that Bible and Torah have warned non-believers too,haven't they?



I really didn't get what you said.



Different sources say different things about that girl who was Aisha Bint Abu Bakr but it is completely clear that she was between 13-15 when she gave birth which by standards of those times was not underage.Christians and Jews and Hindus and Zoroastrians used to marry girls between 10-15 in those times and in those areas too.Also,I suggest you to study a little more about Aisha and how she was treated by Muhammad.



In Islam women are not properties;there is no proof about it neither in Quran neither in Prophet-line quotes.Why do you say they are properties in Islam?



In Islam,all religions are allowed to be practiced freely and Muslims are ordered by Quran to treat non-Muslims respectively and be fair with them.But they are not allowed to disturb the rest of the societies and try to fight against Islamic Social Laws.Why do you say they are persecuted?Please explain.



Well,this is something which should be expanded a little more.In Quran,it has never been said to kill Homosexuals,but just has been said that it is a sin.

In Islam,not all homosexuals are ordered to be killed,because it is their private lives and doesn't concern others.But if that person tries to disturb the society by shouting his sexual statues into it where most of the population are against it,well it's not just a sin anymore,it is crime.Let me just say this simply:If a person is homosexual,none of our business and none of our government's;If he tries to shout it in public where most of people are against it,then it means that he is trying to make tensions among people,so the majority simply ask their government to deal with it.



Where in it does it say to treat straights all fairly and with love?Treating people in general with love and fair is ordered by Quran,regardless of their religion,their sexuality and their political and social ideas.



We are all people,but don't you agree that if I respect you you have to respect me too?If you respect me and I don't respect you,then we will have a conflict.This is exactly like this.



I'm not.



It has changed.Many of Islamic Social laws have changed throughout centuries,but main pillars haven't.


I think what you missed is how bad minorities (not just be race) have it in Muslim countries. The Quran has many scriptures on how infidels shall be killed in the name of Allah. That's scary. And usually in Islam it is not about respect. Not here at least. In my area the Muslims were once a peaceful minority, now the tables are turning fast and the communities are scared. You seem like a Western Muslim, peaceful and thinking your faith is flawless, but I know the truth, you here of it everyday. I respect you, just I have problems with the faith.

[Gamma Male]

I think what you missed is how bad minorities (not just be race) have it in Muslim countries. The Quran has many scriptures on how infidels shall be killed in the name of Allah. That's scary. And usually in Islam it is not about respect. Not here at least. In my area the Muslims were once a peaceful minority, now the tables are turning fast and the communities are scared. You seem like a Western Muslim, peaceful and thinking your faith is flawless, but I know the truth, you here of it everyday. I respect you, just I have problems with the faith.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Christianity is responsible for just as much violence, death, war, and bloodshed as Islam.

[Lovelife090994]

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Christianity is responsible for just as much violence, death, war, and bloodshed as Islam.

Not really. Past versus present and you'll see which one is now.

[Miserabilia]

Not really. Past versus present and you'll see which one is now.

Maybe it's just me but I really don't understan that sentence.

Past versus present

which one is now

._.

[Gamma Male]

Not really. Past versus present and you'll see which one is now.

Maybe Islam is the most violent religon now, but that doesn't change history. That doesn't make Christianity's past any less violent.

My point is, you should condemn someone for their religion when yours isn't really any better.

Maybe it's just me but I really don't understan that sentence.





._.

I think he was trying to say that sure they both have violent pasts, but in the present Islam is the more violent one. Which I kinda agree with. Somewhat. A little.

[Miserabilia]

Maybe Islam is the most violent religon now, but that doesn't change history. That doesn't make Christianity's past any less violent.

My point is, you should condemn someone for their religion when yours isn't really any better.



I think he was trying to say that sure they both have violent pasts, but in the present Islam is the more violent one. Which I kinda agree with. Somewhat. A little.

Oh okay.

[Lovelife090994]

Maybe Islam is the most violent religon now, but that doesn't change history. That doesn't make Christianity's past any less violent.

My point is, you should condemn someone for their religion when yours isn't really any better.



I think he was trying to say that sure they both have violent pasts, but in the present Islam is the more violent one. Which I kinda agree with. Somewhat. A little.

I said both have violent pasts but you can't ignore either nor can you ignore how Islam is being used now.

[Gamma Male]

I said both have violent pasts but you can't ignore either nor can you ignore how Islam is being used now.

I'm not ignoring the harm caused by Islam. It's responsible for all sorts of bad shit and human rights abuses. But so is Christianity, which is why you really shouldn't criticize others for being muslim.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm not ignoring the harm caused by Islam. It's responsible for all sorts of bad shit and human rights abuses. But so is Christianity, which is why you really shouldn't criticize others for being muslim.

Perhaps but there isn't some Christian Taliban now is there? You can be Muslim, but that doesn't mean I have to like Islam. And there is criticism and then there is bringing up the facts. I know people like to hold Christendom for it's past crimes but whenever a current crime happens in any other faith not just Islam, somehow the blame goes to Christians again even when we were just as lost on the ordeal as the victims.

[Left Now]

I think what you missed is how bad minorities (not just be race) have it in Muslim countries.

Minorities may not be treated well by some Muslims in many Muslim countries,but it's not because of religion.

The Quran has many scriptures on how infidels shall be killed in the name of Allah. That's scary.

Yes,but in those same scriptures it is said that "Only fight and kill those who want to fight you and don't transgress" and "Killing one innocent human,regardless of their faith,is killing whole humanity".Those infidels who have to be killed according to Quran,are those who intend to transgress an Islamic nation.We have three types of non-Muslims according to Islamic teachings:

1-Aggressive non-Muslims
2-Neutral non-Muslims
3-Interior non-Muslims

1.Aggressive non-Muslims are armed non-Muslims who have forced a war on a Muslim nation and intend to invade it.These non-Muslims have to be fought,and these are those infidels whom Quran has ordered Muslims to fight and kill unless they stop attacking.This is self-defense.

Most of the times,the verses of Quran which order Muslims to fight infidels and kill them are referring to Arab Pagans who were fighting Islam in first years of preaching.

2-Neutral non-Muslims are non-Muslims who don't have any hostility with Islamic countries and Islam has permitted Muslims to make friends with them,trade with them and in special conditions,ally with them;unless they change their attitude and try to fight Islamic countries.

Ethiopia was one of the first non-Muslim Kingdoms which allied with Muslims at first years of Islam and let a group of Muslim refugees to stay in there

3-Interior non-Muslims are non-Muslims who are living in an Islamic nation.Muslims are ordered to treat them with respect and fairness and let them practice their religions (if they have) freely and in return,they are supposed to respect Islamic Social laws of the majority and not break them.


And usually in Islam it is not about respect.Not here at least

It is.

In my area the Muslims were once a peaceful minority, now the tables are turning fast and the communities are scared.

Why?

You seem like a Western Muslim, peaceful and thinking your faith is flawless, but I know the truth, you here of it everyday.

I am a completely typical Middle Eastern Muslim.I believe every faith is flawless,whether it is Islam or any other faith,but these are bad followers who make a faith look bad or good,not the faith itself.


I respect you, just I have problems with the faith.

I respect you too,but I can't agree with your views on faith.This is why I'm not holding Christianity responsible for the crimes and murders which so-called Christians committed against others,whether Jews or Muslims or Zoroastrians or Pagans or Christians themselves.I simply cannot accept your logic for criticizing faiths.

[Miserabilia]

whenever a current crime happens in any other faith not just Islam, somehow the blame goes to Christians again even when we were just as lost on the ordeal as the victims.

This is simply not true.
Whenever a muslim terrorist attack happens, the responsible muslims are blamed.
Not christianity.
There is literaly no reason to feel as victim to this, as it just doesn't happen.

[Lovelife090994]

Minorities may not be treated well by some Muslims in many Muslim countries,but it's not because of religion.



Yes,but in those same scriptures it is said that "Only fight and kill those who want to fight you and don't transgress" and "Killing one innocent human,regardless of their faith,is killing whole humanity".Those infidels who have to be killed according to Quran,are those who intend to transgress an Islamic nation.We have three types of non-Muslims according to Islamic teachings:

1-Aggressive non-Muslims
2-Neutral non-Muslims
3-Interior non-Muslims

1.Aggressive non-Muslims are armed non-Muslims who have forced a war on a Muslim nation and intend to invade it.These non-Muslims have to be fought,and these are those infidels whom Quran has ordered Muslims to fight and kill unless they stop attacking.This is self-defense.

Most of the times,the verses of Quran which order Muslims to fight infidels and kill them are referring to Arab Pagans who were fighting Islam in first years of preaching.

2-Neutral non-Muslims are non-Muslims who don't have any hostility with Islamic countries and Islam has permitted Muslims to make friends with them,trade with them and in special conditions,ally with them;unless they change their attitude and try to fight Islamic countries.

Ethiopia was one of the first non-Muslim Kingdoms which allied with Muslims at first years of Islam and let a group of Muslim refugees to stay in there

3-Interior non-Muslims are non-Muslims who are living in an Islamic nation.Muslims are ordered to treat them with respect and fairness and let them practice their religions (if they have) freely and in return,they are supposed to respect Islamic Social laws of the majority and not break them.




It is.



Why?



I am a completely typical Middle Eastern Muslim.I believe every faith is flawless,whether it is Islam or any other faith,but these are bad followers who make a faith look bad or good,not the faith itself.




I respect you too,but I can't agree with your views on faith.This is why I'm not holding Christianity responsible for the crimes and murders which so-called Christians committed against others,whether Jews or Muslims or Zoroastrians or Pagans or Christians themselves.I simply cannot accept your logic for criticizing faiths.

People blame Christians for the crimes in the past. I'm blaming Muslims for the crimes of today since no Muslims are speaking out against this crime. And besides, given how the Muslim religion is just simply not tolerant of others and has not been for centuries ergo the fighting in the Middle East, it'll implode one day. And no faith is flawless. Every faith has flaws be it in the person or the history. The flaws of Islam are advocating of violence, the flaws of Christianity is the vast number of false-titles and old versus new contradictory verses. It's all written in stone. You can't rewrite the Quran and you're not supposed to either. I have read the Quran numerous times, and let me just say, it is a very scary read indeed at all the hatred it has to non-Muslims. It is fine if you are a convert but we can't all be Muslim. Terrorists are looking at that part. Technically you can't be Muslim if you are going to ignore half of the Quran, then what are you left with? And to reinstate, no faith is flawless, at some point the religion may have been but now they are all humanly corrupt.


This is simply not true.
Whenever a muslim terrorist attack happens, the responsible muslims are blamed.
Not christianity.
There is literaly no reason to feel as victim to this, as it just doesn't happen.


Yes it is true. No one wants to acknowledge the violence in the Middle East because it puts blame on a group people are considering a peaceful ethnicity, the Muslims, but this is not right. And yes people do blame Christianity for everything. No religion is flawless and at this rate no one and I mean no one is willing to respect any religion anymore. Everyone is always believe this or that, if you speak of it then you're an extremist. There are victims in the Middle East now, getting beheaded and killed. And for what? In the name of Allah these people are dying while the rest of the world twiddles it's fingers. If this keeps up then the Middle East will be the birth of WW3.

[Miserabilia]

Yes it is true... No one wants to acknowledge the violence in the Middle East... And yes people do blame Christianity for everything... no one is willing to respect any religion anymore.... Everyone is always believe this or... that,

With the amount of everything, all, everyone and always in that argument I find it hard to even take it seriously concidering it goes beyond my post.
I'm simply saying, after an attack where muslims are behind it, muslims are blamed.
Christians were not blamed for 9/11. Christians are NOT blamed for muslim terrorists attacks.
Saying they are sounds unreasonable and incredibly far fetched since there's no example of evidence given.
I'm sorry but it's just not true. I'm not choosing sides here, at the moment islam causes more violence and death and it's followers are violent and in lack of better words evil;
and when they do something, they are blamed.
Not christians.
Please, stop feeling like being a christian automaticaly makes you a target, beacuse the only thing that causes that is saying so.

[Left Now]

People blame Christians for the crimes in the past. I'm blaming Muslims for the crimes of today since no Muslims are speaking out against this crime.

Once again you mentioned it while I have proved major half of Islamic World is now condemning those crimes.

Hey would anybody please tell this friend of ours how many Muslims are living in this world now and how many of them are condemning terrorism?

And besides, given how the Muslim religion is just simply not tolerant of others and has not been for centuries ergo the fighting in the Middle East, it'll implode one day.

For centuries and most of the times, Muslims,Christians,Jews and Zoroastrians were living alongside each others in Middle East without any quarrel,until Europeans stepped in the region and messed anything up!Didn't you know that Jews (I mean those who were originally Middle Eastern and not European converts) were enjoying a great religious tolerance and freedom during Islamic Golden Age (with some exceptions) ?Even Orthodox Christians and Zoroastrians in Middle East were living with a great degree of religious tolerance under Muslims rule in Egypt,Persia and Iraq (With exception in different periods of time which is a completely historical debate).

Which nation in Middle Ages can you mention which those who were not following its official religion could hold offices in it except Muslim ones?

Even in Iberia,most Muslim dynasties and ruler were seriously tolerant of other religions including Judaism and Christianity,which made southern parts of Spain a safe and secure place for Jews who were suffering in other parts of Europe.

And no faith is flawless. Every faith has flaws be it in the person or the history.

All faiths are flawless if you (I mean followers) do not make flaws in them.

The flaws of Islam are advocating of violence

Violence and Peace are alongside each others in Islam

, the flaws of Christianity is the vast number of false-titles and old versus new contradictory verses. It's all written in stone.

Which bible

You can't rewrite the Quran and you're not supposed to either

Of course.

. I have read the Quran numerous times, and let me just say, it is a very scary read indeed at all the hatred it has to non-Muslims.

Ah yes and you surely have read all its 30 chapters right?And you still even cannot tell me which verse you mean.Which verses do you mean?

Let me just ask this simply;How many verses of Quran have actually read?Tell me in number.You can't?So tell me how many Surahs you have read at least.

It is fine if you are a convert but we can't all be Muslim.

I am not a convert and I never said that all people should be hecking Muslims.

Terrorists are looking at that part.

While ignoring others.Doesn't make sense.

Technically you can't be Muslim if you are going to ignore half of the Quran, then what are you left with?

I'm not ignoring half of Quran while I'm admitting that there are violent verses in Quran,but don't expect me to ignore its other half,which has restricted those violent parts clearly in various verses.

Also another thing.Half of the Quran?Dude there are more than 6000 verses in Quran (long and short) which nearly 2500 of them are violent directly!Also,if you claim that you have read Quran,all its 30 chapters,then you could see that Quran itself restrict violence in numerous places.

And to reinstate, no faith is flawless, at some point the religion may have been but now they are all humanly corrupt

Disagreed.

[Vlerchan]

Islam's minor laws are changeable as I said,there are only major laws which can never change.So this means that Islam can change too.
Would you mind expanding on this? I'm quite interested.

It's my understanding that all laws in an Islamic state are derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and then the rest from Qiyas (analogical deduction: ie., alcohol is illegal because it intoxicates, and by extension cocaine, heroin, etc. also are): with the reasoning being that since it's God's world, only God (through the above) has the authority to set laws within it. Is that how Muslims propose it works? - or have I been misled?

[Left Now]

Would you mind expanding on this? I'm quite interested.

Of course but through PM I think it would be better.Send me a message and later I will answer you.You know because it's not very good time for me to explain such a huge thing like this now.Because it's 3:00 A.M here at this moment and so on...

[Lovelife090994]

Once again you mentioned it while I have proved major half of Islamic World is now condemning those crimes.

Hey would anybody please tell this friend of ours how many Muslims are living in this world now and how many of them are condemning terrorism?



For centuries and most of the times, Muslims,Christians,Jews and Zoroastrians were living alongside each others in Middle East without any quarrel,until Europeans stepped in the region and messed anything up!Didn't you know that Jews (I mean those who were originally Middle Eastern and not European converts) were enjoying a great religious tolerance and freedom during Islamic Golden Age (with some exceptions) ?Even Orthodox Christians and Zoroastrians in Middle East were living with a great degree of religious tolerance under Muslims rule in Egypt,Persia and Iraq (With exception in different periods of time which is a completely historical debate).

Which nation in Middle Ages can you mention which those who were not following its official religion could hold offices in it except Muslim ones?

Even in Iberia,most Muslim dynasties and ruler were seriously tolerant of other religions including Judaism and Christianity,which made southern parts of Spain a safe and secure place for Jews who were suffering in other parts of Europe.



All faiths are flawless if you (I mean followers) do not make flaws in them.



Violence and Peace are alongside each others in Islam



Which bible



Of course.



Ah yes and you surely have read all its 30 chapters right?And you still even cannot tell me which verse you mean.Which verses do you mean?

Let me just ask this simply;How many verses of Quran have actually read?Tell me in number.You can't?So tell me how many Surahs you have read at least.



I am not a convert and I never said that all people should be hecking Muslims.



While ignoring others.Doesn't make sense.



I'm not ignoring half of Quran while I'm admitting that there are violent verses in Quran,but don't expect me to ignore its other half,which has restricted those violent parts clearly in various verses.

Also another thing.Half of the Quran?Dude there are more than 6000 verses in Quran (long and short) which nearly 2500 of them are violent directly!Also,if you claim that you have read Quran,all its 30 chapters,then you could see that Quran itself restrict violence in numerous places.



Disagreed.

I can't believe you still ignore the history! The Crusade? Heard of it? It happened from Muslims invading the Holy Land and killing scores of Christians and Jews. Also, Muslims tried invading Spain and France so how'd Europe respond? The Crusades, but this didn't work well. The fall of Constantinople afterwards with a long siege and later sacking of the Orthodox Church the Hagia Sophia which was never returned but instead defamed and converted to a mosque. Even closer to now be it in Myanmar with Buddhists versus Muslims or Muslims versus the world Islam has proven time and time again to be against the world. Islam isn't peaceful, it is not a religion of freedom, the women are property in Islam, in Islam a man is to take virgins and to take his bride regardless. Also in Islam leaving the faith is punishable by death. You know this I hope but you're ignoring it. And why should I quote a book you obviously know so well? Lastly, no faith is flawless. Why else do you think so many hate religion? It all has flaws.

With the amount of everything, all, everyone and always in that argument I find it hard to even take it seriously concidering it goes beyond my post.
I'm simply saying, after an attack where muslims are behind it, muslims are blamed.
Christians were not blamed for 9/11. Christians are NOT blamed for muslim terrorists attacks.
Saying they are sounds unreasonable and incredibly far fetched since there's no example of evidence given.
I'm sorry but it's just not true. I'm not choosing sides here, at the moment islam causes more violence and death and it's followers are violent and in lack of better words evil;
and when they do something, they are blamed.
Not christians.
Please, stop feeling like being a christian automaticaly makes you a target, beacuse the only thing that causes that is saying so.

No one cares to help that is for sure. The US Government and other world governments i.e. France, Spain, UK, Russia, South Africa, are they stopped the violence to religious minorities in spite of violence in the Middle East and parts of Africa? No, they stand aside watching as genocide happens. You know as well as I do that people can't stand Christians and all through history no matter what side Christians are on we are hated and no one wants to help, we are outcasts. And I am a target. Want to hear my life's story? And yes, we are blamed and always will be. Try being Christian with an unpopular opinion, even with that you might as well be a monkey considering how the political parties will write you off and ignore you. It doesn't matter what country you are in, Christians are hated and their values seen as lunacy, literally no one cares or accepts Christians anymore. We are hated.

[Miserabilia]

You know as well as I do that people can't stand Christians and all through history no matter what side Christians are on we are hated and no one wants to help, we are outcasts. And I am a target. literally no one cares or accepts Christians anymore. We are hated.


all through history no matter what side Christians are

That doesn't make any sense untill you post a decent example. Throwing around "all and everyone is against us!' just makes the argument weaker.


literally no one cares or accepts Christians anymore.


Over 70% of americans are christians.

over 30% of the world population is christian.

Then again I'm assuming you'd already know these basic facts about your own religion.

[Left Now]

I can't believe you still ignore the history! The Crusade? Heard of it? It happened from Muslims invading the Holy Land and killing scores of Christians and Jews. Also, Muslims tried invading Spain and France so how'd Europe respond? The Crusades, but this didn't work well.
Sorry,you don't have any evidence and you are still trying to claim that your own idea about Islam is exactly what it is while it's not.

Crusades first happened because Byzantine Emperor asked help from his arch enemy Pope against Seljuk Sultan Alp Arsalan,not because of Muslim raids in Europe and Occupation of Holy Lands by Muslims,these very only things which helped Crusades happen easier not the main idea of them.I have evidence for that.Do you?

Lock Routledge Companion pp. 306–308

Mayer Crusades pp. 6–7

n 1074 the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII sent a request for military aid to Pope Gregory VII, but although Gregory appears to have considered leading an expedition to aid Michael, nothing reached the planning stage.The Eastern Empire faced difficulties in the Danube river area, as the Pechenegs had allied with the Seljuq Turks and threatened the Empire until 1091, when they were defeated by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos.

In 1095 Alexios sent envoys to the west requesting military assistance against the Seljuqs. Alexios needed to reinforce his tagmata, so the embassy probably sought to recruit mercenaries and may have exaggerated the dangers facing the Eastern Empire in order to secure the needed troops.The message was received by Pope Urban II at the Council of Piacenza. In November Urban called the Council of Clermont to discuss the matter, further urging the bishops and abbots whom he addressed directly to bring with them the prominent lords in their provinces. The Council lasted from 19 to 28 November, attended by nearly 300 clerics from throughout France. Urban discussed the Cluniac reforms of the Church and extended the excommunication of Philip I of France. Urban spoke for the first time about the problems in the east on 27 November, promoting the struggle of western Christians against the Muslims who had occupied the Holy Land and were attacking the Eastern Roman Empire. There are six main sources of information on the Council: the anonymous Gesta Francorum ("The Deeds of the Franks" dated c. 1100/1101),which influenced all versions of the speech, except that by Fulcher of Chartres who was present at the council; Robert the Monk, who may have been present; as well as Baldric, archbishop of Dol, and Guibert de Nogent, who were not present at the council. All the accounts were written much later following different literary traditions and differ greatly.
Roman Christians were suppressing Jews and ruining their temples and shrines in Holy Lands and forced them to leave while Muslims let them get back and repaired their holy places and temples in Palestine.I have evidence.Do you?

Gil, Moshe (1997). A History of Palestine, 634–1099. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press



Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were once again allowed to live and practice their religion in Jerusalem, 8 years after their massacre by the Byzantines and nearly 500 years after their expulsion from Judea by the Roman Empire


Muslims invaded whole Spain and southern France for a period of time and according to numerous historical books and sources,most of Muslim dynasties which ruled over Iberia and later south Iberia and Cordoba and Granada were really tolerant of other religions unlike Spaniard Catholic Christians who started inquisitive missions for clearing every non-Christian religion from Iberia.I have evidence.Do you?

Jayyusi. The legacy of Muslim Spain


The non-Muslims were given the status of ahl al-dhimma (the people under protection), with adults paying a "Jizya" tax, equal to one dinar per year with exemptions for old people, women, children, and the disabled. Those who were neither Christians nor Jews, such as Pagans, were given the status of Majus.

Jews constituted more than five percent of the population.Al-Andalus was a key centre of Jewish life during the early Middle Ages, producing important scholars and one of the most stable and wealthy Jewish communities. Bernard Lewis takes issue with this view, arguing its modern use is ahistorical and apologetic. He argues that Islam traditionally did not offer equality nor even pretended to, and that it would have been both a "theological as well as a logical absurdity.However, even Bernard Lewis states:

Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character. That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.
Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (1984)

The Caliphate treated non-Muslims differently at different times. The longest period of tolerance began after 912 with the reign of Abd-ar-Rahman III and his son, Al-Hakam II, when the Jews of Al-Andalus prospered, devoting themselves to the service of the Caliphate of Córdoba, to the study of the sciences, and to commerce and industry, especially trading in silk and slaves, in this way promoting the prosperity of the country. Southern Iberia became an asylum for the oppressed Jews of other countries
Quote:
However, massacres of dhimmis (Christians,Jews,Zoroastrians) are rare in Islamic history.
Lewis, Bernard (1987) [1984], The Jews of Islam

Fatimid Caliphate and Buyyid Government of Tabaristan were two major Shia Muslim nations which in both of them non-Muslims were allowed to hold offices and being involved in political matters of Muslims.Especially Fatimid Caliphate was infamous for its great religious tolerance for Egyptian Christians,Orthodox Christians and Jews.I have an evidence for it.

Goldschmidt 84-86


Unlike other governments in the area, advancement in Fatimid state offices was based more on merit than on heredity. Members of other branches of Islam, like the Sunnis, were just as likely to be appointed to government posts as Shiites. Tolerance was extended to non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews,who occupied high levels in government based on ability, and tolerance.
What do you have to say about this one?Jews of Jerusalem fought side by side of Muslims against Crusaders in Crusades!I have an evidence for it.Do you?

Brown, Michael L. Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the "Church" and the Jewish People


Jews fought side-by-side with Muslim soldiers to defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders.Saint Louis University Professor Thomas Madden, author of A Concise History of the Crusades, claims the "Jewish Defenders" of the city knew the rules of warfare and retreated to their synagogue to "prepare for death" since the Crusaders had breached the outer walls. According to the Muslim chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, "The Jews assembled in their synagogue, and the Franks burned it over their heads."One modern-day source even claims the Crusaders "[circled] the screaming, flame-tortured humanity singing 'Christ We Adore Thee!' with their Crusader crosses held high."However, a contemporary Jewish communication does not corroborate the report that Jews were actually inside of the Synagogue when it was set fire.This letter was discovered among the Cairo Geniza collection in 1975 by historian Shelomo Dov Goitein.Historians believe that it was written just two weeks after the siege, making it "the earliest account on the conquest in any language."However, all sources agree that a synagogue was indeed burned during the siege.


The fall of Constantinople afterwards with a long siege and later sacking of the Orthodox Church the Hagia Sophia which was never returned but instead defamed and converted to a mosque. [/quote
Do you understand that Constantinople fell into hands of Ottoman Turks who at the same time were fighting four other different Muslim nations?Mamluks in Egypt,Shias in Lebanon and Iraq,other Muslims in Persia.So don't blame it on Islam,blame it on Turks.And I still know Hagia Sophia as a Church not a mosque.Not only me,but also many other Islamic sources.Because Hagia Sophia was a Church at first and according to Islamic Principles,Muslims are not allowed to change Churches and Kanisas into Mosques.

Even closer to now be it in Myanmar with Buddhists versus Muslims or Muslims versus the world Islam has proven time and time again to be against the world.

Graphic, explicit and inappropriate imagery removed. ~Typhlosion

Muslims are getting massacred innocently and you are just supporting those who are committing genocide?Yet you blame Muslims for their being killed only because of being Muslims?I only can get one thing from it.A GREAT DOUBLE STANDARD.
[QUOTE]Islam isn't peaceful
Your opinion.

it is not a religion of freedom
It is a religion of constitutional freedom.

The Social Laws must not be broken.

the women are property in Islam, in Islam a man is to take virgins and to take his bride regardless.
You have no evidence proving that women are properties in Islam,you yourself know this too and yet you are insisting on forcing your own view of Islam on others.

And about the rest,I really didn't get what you said above would you please type a little clearer and simpler?

Also in Islam leaving the faith is punishable by death. You know this I hope but you're ignoring it
Leaving the faith is not punishable by death if you didn't know,but trying to provoke the Islamic Society by breaking Islamic Social Laws and making tensions in Islamic Society is.You can convert if you like and announce it,but you are not allowed to disturb others' faiths and try to make tensions in society.


And why should I quote a book you obviously know so well?
Because you are claiming something and to prove it,you have to bring proofs and evidences,which as I can see you haven't.

[Lovelife090994]

Sorry,you don't have any evidence and you are still trying to claim that your own idea about Islam is exactly what it is while it's not.

Crusades first happened because Byzantine Emperor asked help from his arch enemy Pope against Seljuk Sultan Alp Arsalan,not because of Muslim raids in Europe and Occupation of Holy Lands by Muslims,these very only things which helped Crusades happen easier not the main idea of them.I have evidence for that.Do you?

Lock Routledge Companion pp. 306–308

Mayer Crusades pp. 6–7

Roman Christians were suppressing Jews and ruining their temples and shrines in Holy Lands and forced them to leave while Muslims let them get back and repaired their holy places and temples in Palestine.I have evidence.Do you?

Gil, Moshe (1997). A History of Palestine, 634–1099. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press




Muslims invaded whole Spain and southern France for a period of time and according to numerous historical books and sources,most of Muslim dynasties which ruled over Iberia and later south Iberia and Cordoba and Granada were really tolerant of other religions unlike Spaniard Catholic Christians who started inquisitive missions for clearing every non-Christian religion from Iberia.I have evidence.Do you?

Jayyusi. The legacy of Muslim Spain



Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (1984)
Fatimid Caliphate and Buyyid Government of Tabaristan were two major Shia Muslim nations which in both of them non-Muslims were allowed to hold offices and being involved in political matters of Muslims.Especially Fatimid Caliphate was infamous for its great religious tolerance for Egyptian Christians,Orthodox Christians and Jews.I have an evidence for it.

Goldschmidt 84-86


What do you have to say about this one?Jews of Jerusalem fought side by side of Muslims against Crusaders in Crusades!I have an evidence for it.Do you?

Brown, Michael L. Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the "Church" and the Jewish People


Do you understand that Constantinople fell into hands of Ottoman Turks who at the same time were fighting four other different Muslim nations?Mamluks in Egypt,Shias in Lebanon and Iraq,other Muslims in Persia.So don't blame it on Islam,blame it on Turks.And I still know Hagia Sophia as a Church not a mosque.Not only me,but also many other Islamic sources.Because Hagia Sophia was a Church at first and according to Islamic Principles,Muslims are not allowed to change Churches and Kanisas into Mosques.

Even closer to now be it in Myanmar with Buddhists versus Muslims or Muslims versus the world Islam has proven time and time again to be against the world.

Graphic, explicit and inappropriate imagery removed. ~Typhlosion

Muslims are getting massacred innocently and you are just supporting those who are committing genocide?Yet you blame Muslims for their being killed only because of being Muslims?I only can get one thing from it.A GREAT DOUBLE STANDARD.


Your opinion.


It is a religion of constitutional freedom.

The Social Laws must not be broken.


You have no evidence proving that women are properties in Islam,you yourself know this too and yet you are insisting on forcing your own view of Islam on others.

And about the rest,I really didn't get what you said above would you please type a little clearer and simpler?


Leaving the faith is not punishable by death if you didn't know,but trying to provoke the Islamic Society by breaking Islamic Social Laws and making tensions in Islamic Society is.You can convert if you like and announce it,but you are not allowed to disturb others' faiths and try to make tensions in society.


Because you are claiming something and to prove it,you have to bring proofs and evidences,which as I can see you haven't.

Wow, you spent pages to through rhetoric in my face, so let me try reason is a short few paragraphs. Yes, I care about those being killed but you never acknowledged Christians and Jews getting killed. But I know why. You are okay with it or simply cannot speak against it since in Islam you are not allowed to speak against your own faith no matter what is done in it's name. And proof of women being treated as less?

Just open your eyes and look at how lowly Muslim women are treated. Can't drive, largely less educated than the men, taken prisoner, not to have her hair uncovered, never to leave an abusive husband because she is his, and need I add how in Islam a woman who is a non-Muslim must convert to Islam when married to a Muslim or else she face death. The killing of the Christian woman in Sudan who married a Muslim. You can't make this up my dear.

And have you not seen the history? Yeah Muslims love you as long as you submit and pay taxes. About that tax, it was 90% of what they had so basically bondage. I fail to see how you see this faith as flawless. Even other Muslims are dying at the hands of the Shi'ites! Have you been deaf or blind this time? Maybe you aren't interested in this stuff, I get it, but you can't ignore the violence. South Spain was invaded, the Spanish had to fight the invading Muslims out of the Iberian Peninsula because the Muslim Horde wanted to rule Europe as it says they are to do in the Quran.


That doesn't make any sense untill you post a decent example. Throwing around "all and everyone is against us!' just makes the argument weaker.



Over 70% of americans are christians.

over 30% of the world population is christian.

Then again I'm assuming you'd already know these basic facts about your own religion.

I know those two parts but most statistics are made up. In my area and growing up I've seen nothing but people against Christians. Just look here to see it even. Even you are against me and hate me, but if so I can't change that part.

[Vlerchan]

World:

The table below lists religions classified by philosophy; however, religious philosophy is not always the determining factor in local practice. Please note that this table includes heterodox movements as adherents to their larger philosophical category, although this may be disputed by others within that category. For example Christianity with counted with over 2 billion followers [31.5% of world population - and it's broken down here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)] overlap those are culturally Christian as well as indigenous people combining folk religions or shamanism with either Christianity or Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

USA:

The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs. The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Texas:

In 2000, the religious demographics of Texas were:
Evangelical Protestant – 64.4%.Roman Catholic – 21.2%Mainline Protestant – 8.1%Orthodox – 0.1%Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslim, others; 2.0%Unclaimed – 4.5%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas

Ohio:

Religion. According to a Pew Forum poll, as of 2008, 76% of Ohioans identified as Christian. Specifically, 26% of Ohio's population identified as Evangelical Protestant, 22% as Mainline Protestant, and 21% as Roman Catholic. 17% of the population is unaffiliated with any religious body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio

I have no idea where Christians get this idea that they're oppressed or something.

[Southside]

World:

The table below lists religions classified by philosophy; however, religious philosophy is not always the determining factor in local practice. Please note that this table includes heterodox movements as adherents to their larger philosophical category, although this may be disputed by others within that category. For example Christianity with counted with over 2 billion followers [31.5% of world population - and it's broken down here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)] overlap those are culturally Christian as well as indigenous people combining folk religions or shamanism with either Christianity or Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

USA:

The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs. The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Texas:

In 2000, the religious demographics of Texas were:
Evangelical Protestant – 64.4%.Roman Catholic – 21.2%Mainline Protestant – 8.1%Orthodox – 0.1%Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslim, others; 2.0%Unclaimed – 4.5%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas

Ohio:

Religion. According to a Pew Forum poll, as of 2008, 76% of Ohioans identified as Christian. Specifically, 26% of Ohio's population identified as Evangelical Protestant, 22% as Mainline Protestant, and 21% as Roman Catholic. 17% of the population is unaffiliated with any religious body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio

I have no idea where Christians get this idea that they're oppressed or something.

And what about those fools running around saying the "White Race" is disappearing?

[Lovelife090994]

World:

The table below lists religions classified by philosophy; however, religious philosophy is not always the determining factor in local practice. Please note that this table includes heterodox movements as adherents to their larger philosophical category, although this may be disputed by others within that category. For example Christianity with counted with over 2 billion followers [31.5% of world population - and it's broken down here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)] overlap those are culturally Christian as well as indigenous people combining folk religions or shamanism with either Christianity or Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

USA:

The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs. The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to a 2012 survey by the Pew forum, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Texas:

In 2000, the religious demographics of Texas were:
Evangelical Protestant – 64.4%.Roman Catholic – 21.2%Mainline Protestant – 8.1%Orthodox – 0.1%Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslim, others; 2.0%Unclaimed – 4.5%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Texas

Ohio:

Religion. According to a Pew Forum poll, as of 2008, 76% of Ohioans identified as Christian. Specifically, 26% of Ohio's population identified as Evangelical Protestant, 22% as Mainline Protestant, and 21% as Roman Catholic. 17% of the population is unaffiliated with any religious body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio

I have no idea where Christians get this idea that they're oppressed or something.

I am oppressed everyday by neighbors who continue to belittle me and cyberbullied occasionally for my faith.

[Gamma Male]

I am oppressed everyday by neighbors who continue to belittle me and cyberbullied occasionally for my faith.

Really? You're made fun of for being Christian in Texas?

[Lovelife090994]

Really? You're made fun of for being Christian in Texas?

Yes, and have been since middle school.

[Miserabilia]

I know those two parts but most statistics are made up. In my area and growing up I've seen nothing but people against Christians. Just look here to see it even. Even you are against me and hate me, but if so I can't change that part.


I know those two parts but most statistics are made up. In my area and growing up I've seen nothing but people against Christians.


I know those two parts but most statistics are made up.



most statistics are made up.

Really? That is your argument? Do you think the official usa demographics were just pulled out of a hat?

In my area and growing up I've seen nothing but people against Christians.

And I feel very sorry about that. It must be very difficult being a christian outside the bible belt in an area where you are the only christian; I mean, you were the only christians right?

[Left Now]

Wow, you spent pages to through rhetoric in my face, so let me try reason is a short few paragraphs. Yes, I care about those being killed but you never acknowledged Christians and Jews getting killed.

I never acknowledged?This is not fair!I have always condemned those are committing genocide against Christians and Jews right in front of yourself for hundreds of times!Yet you say that I never acknowledged?

But I know why. You are okay with it or simply cannot speak against it since in Islam you are not allowed to speak against your own faith no matter what is done in it's name.


Once again you are easily getting out of control!Why do you say that no Muslims are condemning it while I have proved that more than half of Islamic World are seriously charging those extremists for committing those crimes in the name of their religion?Why?

And proof of women being treated as less?

Just open your eyes and look at how lowly Muslim women are treated. Can't drive

Yeah just in Saudi Arabia not in whole Muslim World!

, largely less educated than the men

Did you know that this year more than half of those who are going to university in Iran are female.Didn't you know that how many female scientists Muslim countries have?Didn't you know that....

You have no proof for what you are saying right now.

, taken prisoner

Most funny thing ever.You have no proof,so simply be quiet about them.


not to have her hair uncovered

Oh they can

, never to leave an abusive husband because she is his,

Once again saying something as baseless as your logic.Proof? "Oh I don't have any proof,but hey look!Those Muslims are doing it!See how savage their religion is?"

When It comes to proof,you simply cannot even get the hiccups!So how do say such things like this while you cannot prove them?


and need I add how in Islam a woman who is a non-Muslim must convert to Islam when married to a Muslim or else she face death.

It is exactly unlike what you said in Islam even according to text of Quran itself.Where do you really get these things from?Because they are all pure nonsense.Proof?...Hic..Hic...Oh did you get hiccups once again?


The killing of the Christian woman in Sudan who married a Muslim. You can't make this up my dear.


Yeah once again Muslims in places like Sudan and Saudi Arabia are representatives of whole Islamic World right?Great!It is so funny when you take a real minority in Islamic world as a representative for all the majority.

We are talking about Islam my friend!Not some dumbs in Sudan and other countries who call themselves Muslims!




And have you not seen the history? Yeah Muslims love you as long as you submit and pay taxes. About that tax, it was 90% of what they had so basically bondage.

I brought nearly more than 8 sources which could confirm my claim,but you are just saying things based on air!Where is your proof for that?Hiccups!

90% of anything they had!Sorry but pure nonsense!They only needed to pay a little amount of money not all things they had!Even that special tax for non-Muslims in comparing with the taxes which Muslims themselves had to pay were nothing!Non-Muslims only needed to pay Jazyia and regular tax,while Muslims needed to pay Zakat,Khoms and regular taxes with each others.Also,you'd better know that non-Muslims are no longer needed to pay Jazyia in Islamic countries anymore,because like others they will serve in military these days for a while,which means that they will defend the country when it is attacked and no longer Muslim soldiers are alone in defending.

Those taxes were taken from non-Muslims as a payment for security.When it was coming to defend,non-Muslims were not supposed to take up arms and defend Muslim cities,even if they themselves were living in it.So Muslim army was not supposed to defend them against aggressors neither.But if they wanted support from Muslim army,then they were required to either help Muslims against invaders,or pay a little amount of money for protection.A little amount of money not 90% of anything they had!I have proof for it,very reliable proof while you only have hiccups.

I fail to see how you see this faith as flawless. Even other Muslims are dying at the hands of the Shi'ites!

Hehe,ridiculous!It's about 200 years that Shias are getting killed by Muslim and Secular extremists in Middle East!You just proved that how baseless your information is!Your proof?HICCUPS!

Have you been deaf or blind this time? Maybe you aren't interested in this stuff, I get it, but you can't ignore the violence. South Spain was invaded, the Spanish had to fight the invading Muslims out of the Iberian Peninsula because the Muslim Horde wanted to rule Europe as it says they are to do in the Quran.

Muslims only intended to invade Spain not whole Europe!And I'm sure that you don't know why!Because Spaniards used to trespass in African territories of Caliphates and raid Muslim villages and trading caravans through Africa to Europe.Caliphates didn't have any interest in conquering the lands which were full of renegades,bandits and Dark Ages Kingdoms,which by it I mean those days Western Europe.

Haha,this shows that how baseless your views on Quran is!I'm sure that you even haven't read 10 verses of it!Well,what else can a person who except hiccups doesn't have any other proof for his claims say?



I know those two parts but most statistics are made up. In my area and growing up I've seen nothing but people against Christians. Just look here to see it even. Even you are against me and hate me, but if so I can't change that part.

I'm not against you and don't hate you,but I can't see anything else except hatred dropping of your words for Muslims.


Let's finish this my friend!I can't debate with you anymore because we can't understand each others and can't make each others do neither.This is a completely complicated question which can never be answered.But you'd better always remember that I always respect Christianity,I always have and always will.That's all;God Bless You!

[mrgreenbreeze04]

I'm a Christian. I'm an Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) member.

[Lovelife090994]

Really? That is your argument? Do you think the official usa demographics were just pulled out of a hat?



And I feel very sorry about that. It must be very difficult being a christian outside the bible belt in an area where you are the only christian; I mean, you were the only christians right?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but in my area yes many are not religious at all and if you are not Catholic and don't be gay and Christian you are harassed a lot. Why? I have no clue. Here even wearing a cross can give trouble. It's crazy but my area has not always been fair. But because no abuse has happened there hasn't been much mention of it. High school especially had this issue but also around town.

I never acknowledged?This is not fair!I have always condemned those are committing genocide against Christians and Jews right in front of yourself for hundreds of times!Yet you say that I never acknowledged?




Once again you are easily getting out of control!Why do you say that no Muslims are condemning it while I have proved that more than half of Islamic World are seriously charging those extremists for committing those crimes in the name of their religion?Why?



Yeah just in Saudi Arabia not in whole Muslim World!



Did you know that this year more than half of those who are going to university in Iran are female.Didn't you know that how many female scientists Muslim countries have?Didn't you know that....

You have no proof for what you are saying right now.



Most funny thing ever.You have no proof,so simply be quiet about them.




Oh they can



Once again saying something as baseless as your logic.Proof? "Oh I don't have any proof,but hey look!Those Muslims are doing it!See how savage their religion is?"

When It comes to proof,you simply cannot even get the hiccups!So how do say such things like this while you cannot prove them?




It is exactly unlike what you said in Islam even according to text of Quran itself.Where do you really get these things from?Because they are all pure nonsense.Proof?...Hic..Hic...Oh did you get hiccups once again?





Yeah once again Muslims in places like Sudan and Saudi Arabia are representatives of whole Islamic World right?Great!It is so funny when you take a real minority in Islamic world as a representative for all the majority.

We are talking about Islam my friend!Not some dumbs in Sudan and other countries who call themselves Muslims!




I brought nearly more than 8 sources which could confirm my claim,but you are just saying things based on air!Where is your proof for that?Hiccups!

90% of anything they had!Sorry but pure nonsense!They only needed to pay a little amount of money not all things they had!Even that special tax for non-Muslims in comparing with the taxes which Muslims themselves had to pay were nothing!Non-Muslims only needed to pay Jazyia and regular tax,while Muslims needed to pay Zakat,Khoms and regular taxes with each others.Also,you'd better know that non-Muslims are no longer needed to pay Jazyia in Islamic countries anymore,because like others they will serve in military these days for a while,which means that they will defend the country when it is attacked and no longer Muslim soldiers are alone in defending.

Those taxes were taken from non-Muslims as a payment for security.When it was coming to defend,non-Muslims were not supposed to take up arms and defend Muslim cities,even if they themselves were living in it.So Muslim army was not supposed to defend them against aggressors neither.But if they wanted support from Muslim army,then they were required to either help Muslims against invaders,or pay a little amount of money for protection.A little amount of money not 90% of anything they had!I have proof for it,very reliable proof while you only have hiccups.



Hehe,ridiculous!It's about 200 years that Shias are getting killed by Muslim and Secular extremists in Middle East!You just proved that how baseless your information is!Your proof?HICCUPS!



Muslims only intended to invade Spain not whole Europe!And I'm sure that you don't know why!Because Spaniards used to trespass in African territories of Caliphates and raid Muslim villages and trading caravans through Africa to Europe.Caliphates didn't have any interest in conquering the lands which were full of renegades,bandits and Dark Ages Kingdoms,which by it I mean those days Western Europe.

Haha,this shows that how baseless your views on Quran is!I'm sure that you even haven't read 10 verses of it!Well,what else can a person who except hiccups doesn't have any other proof for his claims say?




I'm not against you and don't hate you,but I can't see anything else except hatred dropping of your words for Muslims.


Let's finish this my friend!I can't debate with you anymore because we can't understand each others and can't make each others do neither.This is a completely complicated question which can never be answered.But you'd better always remember that I always respect Christianity,I always have and always will.That's all;God Bless You!

Well, good luck living like that. It is not good what Islam is doing, and you can't see that. So maybe you are with hiccups. I've based my claims by what I've witnesses and researched, I've based my findings on news articles and by world events both historical and modern, it is not made up. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

[Miserabilia]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but in my area yes many are not religious at all


Oh the horror.
See, I find it strange, you know, with 76% of the population of ohio identifying as christian, that "literaly everyone" is nothing but against christians.
That's just something, that you know, seems a little odd to me? Are all christians against themselves?

if you are not Catholic and don't be gay and Christian you are harassed a lot.



To the catholic part, there are more protestants than catholics in ohio.
And you say people in ohio are harassed for not being gay?
Tbh I kind of doubt that. It seems more likely that if you are harassed it would be because of your opinions on gay rights, etc.


Here even wearing a cross can give trouble. It's crazy but my area has not always been fair. But because no abuse has happened there hasn't been much mention of it. High school especially had this issue but also around town.



If there's no abuse, what is all the fuss?

[Lovelife090994]

Oh the horror.
See, I find it strange, you know, with 76% of the population of ohio identifying as christian, that "literaly everyone" is nothing but against christians.
That's just something, that you know, seems a little odd to me? Are all christians against themselves?



To the catholic part, there are more protestants than catholics in ohio.
And you say people in ohio are harassed for not being gay?
Tbh I kind of doubt that. It seems more likely that if you are harassed it would be because of your opinions on gay rights, etc.




If there's no abuse, what is all the fuss?

I'm in Texas remember? I am from Ohio. Moving on, religious intolerance is religious intolerance. Tolerating one religion and not the other is a little hypocritical especially when one starts treating people differently. And I meant if you are gay and Christian that you are harassed a lot. But away from me, what do you say about non-Muslims being killed in Muslim lands under Sharia Law?

[Miserabilia]

I'm in Texas remember? I am from Ohio.

Almost no difference.
76% of texans are christian.
21% is roman catholic.


Moving on, religious intolerance is religious intolerance. Tolerating one religion and not the other is a little hypocritical especially when one starts treating people differently.

That's steering the subject away,they're peaceful and I do not tolerate violence from either, like most people.


And I meant if you are gay and Christian that you are harassed a lot.

Hold on, wasn't it being harassed for not being gay a post ago? Is it different now?

But away from me, what do you say about non-Muslims being killed in Muslim lands under Sharia Law?

I find it absolutely disgusting.

[Broken Toy]

what do you say about non-Muslims being killed in Muslim lands under Sharia Law?

that problem is completely exaggerated to make it seem like muslims are evil and the way you asked it makes it sound like you dont mind muslims being killed under sharia law. im not completely sure everywhere where sharia law is practised but seeing how there isnt a muslim country that officially abides sharia law and it is only certain extremist groups its unfair for muslims to be demonized. its not acceptable but its not everyone.

i am non religious which doesnt make me an atheist since i view atheism as a religion. i am also not agnostic since i believe there is a god(s) but would much rather have ideas because ifi dont agree with something i change it, you cant have that in a religion

[Vlerchan]

i am non religious which doesnt make me an atheist since i view atheism as a religion.
It's not.

Religion infers belief. Atheists are characterised by their disbelief.

[Broken Toy]

Religion infers belief. Atheists are characterised by their disbelief.

i see it as a religion because they believe in not believing. they believe in something its just not a god

[Vlerchan]

they believe in something its just not a god
A 'state of mind' isn't something you believe in.

---

And by your logic, if I believe I'm satisfied then I've just gone and created a new religion.

[Broken Toy]

A 'state of mind' isn't something you believe in.

---

And by your logic, if I believe I'm satisfied then I've just gone and created a new religion.

i didnt fully understand that but ill try interpret this right. if you were satisfied you havent created a new religion you just decided your own beliefs. you dont have to believe in a religion, and i just think that believing in your own ideas and interpretations without the template of a religion is better

[Vlerchan]

i didnt fully understand that but ill try interpret this right. if you were satisfied you havent created a new religion you just decided your own beliefs. you dont have to believe in a religion, and i just think that believing in your own ideas and interpretations without the template of a religion is better
Right, that's all well and good, but my point is that atheism is not a belief and so not a religion.

It's defined as the rejection of a belief in deities, or a disbelief in deities, meaning an absence of belief in deities.

---

I'm not criticising your beliefs. I'm criticising the idea that atheism is a belief system.

[Broken Toy]

but to reject belief must mean that you believe that there is no god

[Vlerchan]

but to reject belief must mean that you believe that there is no god
I'd very much just see it as disbelief in the claims of others.

I wouldn't consider belief in nothing a belief.

---

You're argument gets into semantics here: disbelief might imply that the belief in the opposite is true - but it's not 'belief' in the way that any religion is made.

[Gamma Male]

but to reject belief must mean that you believe that there is no god

No it doesn't. I do not believe in God. But I also do not believe there is no god. I simply believe the existence of God to be very unlikely.


I've gone over this a lot before, but not believing one thing to be true doesn't necessitate that you believe the opposite. It would be logically fallacious to assume that because one doesn't believe the probability of God existing is 100%(gnostic theism), they must believe the probability is 0%(gnostic atheism). They could just believe the probability is between 0% and 100%, or they could lack any believe on the subject whatsoever. This is the case for inanimate objects and animals and babies. Planets do not believe in God. That doesn't mean they believe there is no God. Some people do not believe in god. That does not mean they believe there is no god.

[Broken Toy]

if they both didnt believe there was a god and didnt believe there wasnt a god that would be agnosticism (i think, im just saying they would be agnostic)

[Miserabilia]

if they both didnt believe there was a god and didnt believe there wasnt a god that would be agnosticism (i think, im just saying they would be agnostic)

No. There's gnostic and agnostic atheism, hard agnosticism and agnostic and gnostic theism.

An atheist that is an agnostic atheist does not beleive in a god, but also does not beleive god DOES NOT exist. They just don't beleive it.
A gnostic atheist beleives god DOES not exist and "knows" it.

[Broken Toy]

well ive learned something. i never heard of 'gnostic' before this thread. i think in this thread i learned more than i did in 9 years of r.e

[kanine]

I consider myself to be agnostic. However I am starting to lean towards a more athistic veiw. I think that the concept of religion, in all of it's glory, is the worlds greatest mistake. I don't mean this as "oh every who believe in big man in sky be dumb dumb har" but like, think about how many wars are fought because some guy believes something the other doesn't. To state a few examples: Hitler targetted jews because they didn't believe Jesus was the messiah (or that was one reason at least), The catholics and isl went to war over the holy lands just because they believed jesus was just a prophet so they were heretics, westboro baptist church waging war against humanity because of bible text taken out of context. all of this death, war, and hatred could easily have been avoided were it not for religion having to have its way with everyone on the face of the planet.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, and I am in no way claiming I am right about all of this. It's just my veiwpoint and I'm happy to say I respect many others veiwpoints. Unless you run at me screaming like a banshee and demanding I accept christ or burn in the eternal hellfire.

[TerraSonitus]

I'm LDS!
yay, Christianity!

[Neverender]

Since there's little discussion in here atm,

I'll re-re-re-re-introduce myself, my last post in this thread was 2012.

I'm a stubborn atheist. I run through religions with logic, and they're completely unnecessary for human morality in this day in age. In fact, I think they're evil. I grew up Anglican on an island almost as segregated among denominations as Ireland is. Newfoundland was divided between the Anglicans, Catholics and the Methodists (Like the Salvation Army, and the United Church). You knew, and still know, which family comes from where based solely on religion. Anglican? English. Catholic? Irish. Methodist? London.

They each owned their own school board up until 1997. So all the catholics were sent to catholic schools, ang to anglican, etc. Costly and ineffectual since there were as many school boards as there were religions. Often, entire towns were separated and still are based on Denomination. Norris Arm is Catholic. Norris Arm North is Anglican and Salvation Army. You can see Norris Arm North about 3 kilometres away, but the nearest road into it takes you 10 km down the highway. It divided communities and in recent years we as an island have had the good sense to blow it off.

I hate religion. Name me one moral thing that can only be done by a person of faith and cannot be performed by a nonbeliever or atheist. Can't name one.
But name me one immoral thing that a believer may do that an atheist could not do, and you come up with many examples. Killing in the name of god, genital mutilation, having an old pope telling the heavily catholic african world that AIDS is bad and very wicked, but not as wicked as condoms. Which may have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Just a few of my grievances to note


EDIT: I should note, our denominations and branches of Christianity are far more peaceful and open to renounce holy scripture than the branches in Europe and particularly the United States. Canadian church dioceses are very liberal these days, absolutely no fire and brimstone

[Karkat]

if they both didnt believe there was a god and didnt believe there wasnt a god that would be agnosticism (i think, im just saying they would be agnostic)

Not exactly, agnosticism is more like saying "I don't know, and I don't think we can know" to put it basically.

Agnosticism is more the belief that it's impossible to know for sure whether or not a higher power does exist. Then you have agnostic theism, which is like "I don't think it's possible to know, but there could be [in my opinion]", and you've got agnostic atheism, which is like "I don't think it's possible to know, but I don't think there is [in my opinion, it is highly unlikely for a god to exist]".

I mean, I suppose there are true agnostics out there who just generally stay neutral ("It's impossible to know anyways, why bother siding?"), but generally the agnostics I've met (are atheistic) lean one way or the other.

I consider myself to be agnostic. However I am starting to lean towards a more athistic veiw. I think that the concept of religion, in all of it's glory, is the worlds greatest mistake. I don't mean this as "oh every who believe in big man in sky be dumb dumb har" but like, think about how many wars are fought because some guy believes something the other doesn't. To state a few examples: Hitler targetted jews because they didn't believe Jesus was the messiah (or that was one reason at least), The catholics and isl went to war over the holy lands just because they believed jesus was just a prophet so they were heretics, westboro baptist church waging war against humanity because of bible text taken out of context. all of this death, war, and hatred could easily have been avoided were it not for religion having to have its way with everyone on the face of the planet.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, and I am in no way claiming I am right about all of this. It's just my veiwpoint and I'm happy to say I respect many others veiwpoints. Unless you run at me screaming like a banshee and demanding I accept christ or burn in the eternal hellfire.

I'm not saying you're wrong in this, however, arguably religion isn't the only thing that's brought about hate. And arguably, hating someone over a difference of opinion is more justifiable than hating someone over a difference in appearance.

I feel that people, as a whole, take a lot of things way too seriously, and way too far. Religion just happens to be something a lot of people have conviction in. It's unfortunate that no one thinks to use logic in day-to-day life- and worse, that they don't think to teach their kids to...

If everyone learned to calm the fuck down, would religion have been as big of a problem in the first place? Obviously we'll never know- the past is the past, however, a lot can be accomplished when you take a step back and think. A lot of these people didn't think very hard. They just used their emotions of rage and hate fueled by prejudice and xenophobia taught to them by their parents.

I mean, I'm hardly a good example of "calming the fuck down", but I do know where I fall short. I'm not blind to my faults. It's a hard habit to break sometimes.

[kanine]

Not exactly, agnosticism is more like saying "I don't know, and I don't think we can know" to put it basically.

Agnosticism is more the belief that it's impossible to know for sure whether or not a higher power does exist. Then you have agnostic theism, which is like "I don't think it's possible to know, but there could be [in my opinion]", and you've got agnostic atheism, which is like "I don't think it's possible to know, but I don't think there is [in my opinion, it is highly unlikely for a god to exist]".

I mean, I suppose there are true agnostics out there who just generally stay neutral ("It's impossible to know anyways, why bother siding?"), but generally the agnostics I've met (are atheistic) lean one way or the other.



I'm not saying you're wrong in this, however, arguably religion isn't the only thing that's brought about hate. And arguably, hating someone over a difference of opinion is more justifiable than hating someone over a difference in appearance.

I feel that people, as a whole, take a lot of things way too seriously, and way too far. Religion just happens to be something a lot of people have conviction in. It's unfortunate that no one thinks to use logic in day-to-day life- and worse, that they don't think to teach their kids to...

If everyone learned to calm the fuck down, would religion have been as big of a problem in the first place? Obviously we'll never know- the past is the past, however, a lot can be accomplished when you take a step back and think. A lot of these people didn't think very hard. They just used their emotions of rage and hate fueled by prejudice and xenophobia taught to them by their parents.

I mean, I'm hardly a good example of "calming the fuck down", but I do know where I fall short. I'm not blind to my faults. It's a hard habit to break sometimes.

There is no arguing with this, I appologize if it sounded like I was blaming everything wrong with the world on religion as that was not my intention. In any case, I love your philosophy. Lets all just chill the fuck out and love eachother.

[Karkat]

There is no arguing with this, I appologize if it sounded like I was blaming everything wrong with the world on religion as that was not my intention. In any case, I love your philosophy. Lets all just chill the fuck out and love eachother.

Haha, no, it's fine. (I think I was kind of hyper that day anyways, so I'm sorry if I came off angry or something?)

As the Beatles said, "All you need is love" :D :hippie:

[James Dean]

I was brought up as christian, and I have no problems with christians. But I'm not forced to go to service or bible study or read the bible or anything. I do however gain lots of respect for and currently thinking about converting to Atheism, Agnosticism and Paganism/Wicca.

[Swipper]

Religion is poison, and should be exterminated at any costs. Also, Islam is the most violent religion to date and we should focus on exterminating it first.

[Vlerchan]

Religion is poison
How?

exterminated[/I] at any costs. Also, Islam is the most violent religion to date and we should focus on exterminating it first.
Right.

Any suggestions about how this extermination will take place?