Your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and why?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Firstly, I was discussing the Catholic church because it happened to become the focus of the argument. Of course other religions exist, and of course most of them leave a legacy as complicated as the Catholic church's.

Secondly, this is a debate about the legacy of organized religious authorities. Many of the things I mentioned were directly ordered or condoned by an organized religious authority. This was to counter the fallacious claim that they had had a massively positive impact on history.

I will need to look over your single source later, but suffice to say that even if it has birthed the prosperity of the west it doesn't exactly justify all of the horrible things it has also done. To treat it as an overwhelming and uncomplicated positive force on history, as was done in the post I responded to, is ignorant and poisonous.

And then there is the massive modern problems with the church and with organized religion in general. Past success does not absolve you of modern atrocities.

As I said in my earlier post, even if the Catholic Church has committed a lot of atrocities, the Catholic Church is noteworthy for its positive influences on science, education, capitalism, government, healthcare and et cetera.

This is because no institution throughout Christianity has equaled to the positive influences that the Church has done even if the Church, let's say has committed a lot of atrocities.

Islam did a lot of atrocities too and do not say Mesoamerican civilizations were not fond of human sacrifices. Atrocity existed throughout history but Christianity represented by the Catholic Church in Western Europe was notable enough for the positive influences it has made: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages, another source, if you dislike single sources.

To substantiate your position, please cite an example of a religious institution throughout history that equaled the Church in the positive influences that it gave to society.

You seem to treat my arguments like as how a shooter would treat his enemy in a gunfight, hurling bullets to the enemy without stop while ignoring my own arguments. It seems that you only like to focus on the atrocities committed and ignore the positive forces made.

On an analogy, the Romans were noteworthy because on their achievements on city planning, architecture, engineering, law and government but I gonna ask you one question:
Why is is that you do not hear people say :Well, the Romans made advances in engineering, military technology, city planning and government but hey, none of that justifies the fact that they conquered many lands, slaughtered a lot of natives and killed people for amusement!".

[Senyosu]

My family has been for the most part Catholic, with my father's side being largely full of lapsed Catholics with some currently practicing Buddhism. While my mother's side being predominantly traditionalist Chinese and practice traditional Chinese practices like Confucianism and the like.

I was to be raised Catholic, but as a result of my grandmother on my mother's side, I never was baptised or circumcised as one. This was largely because of personal issues with the church at that time.

So, I was raised in a traditionalist Chinese home with predominantly Buddhist teachings and the like.

I would like to describe myself as an atheistic Buddhist. In that I live by Buddhist principles, without adhering to the spiritual aspect. In fact, I would consider Buddhism as a philosophy of life. So yeah.

[Nerotysia]

Firstly, I was discussing the Catholic church because it happened to become the focus of the argument. Of course other religions exist, and of course most of them leave a legacy as complicated as the Catholic church's.

Secondly, this is a debate about the legacy of organized religious authorities. Many of the things I mentioned were directly ordered or condoned by an organized religious authority. This was to counter the fallacious claim that they had had a massively positive impact on history.

I will need to look over your single source later, but suffice to say that even if it has birthed the prosperity of the west it doesn't exactly justify all of the horrible things it has also done. To treat it as an overwhelming and uncomplicated positive force on history, as was done in the post I responded to, is ignorant and poisonous.

And then there is the massive modern problems with the church and with organized religion in general. Past success does not absolve you of modern atrocities.

As I said in my earlier post, even if the Catholic Church has committed a lot of atrocities, the Catholic Church is noteworthy for its positive influences on science, education, capitalism, government, healthcare and et cetera.

This is because no institution throughout Christianity has equaled to the positive influences that the Church has done even if the Church, let's say has committed a lot of atrocities.

Islam did a lot of atrocities too and do not say Mesoamerican civilizations were not fond of human sacrifices. Atrocity existed throughout history but Christianity represented by the Catholic Church in Western Europe was notable enough for the positive influences it has made: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages, another source, if you dislike single sources.

To substantiate your position, please cite an example of a religious institution throughout history that equaled the Church in the positive influences that it gave to society.

You seem to treat my arguments like as how a shooter would treat his enemy in a gunfight, hurling bullets to the enemy without stop while ignoring my own arguments. It seems that you only like to focus on the atrocities committed and ignore the positive forces made.

On an analogy, the Romans were noteworthy because on their achievements on city planning, architecture, engineering, law and government but I gonna ask you one question:
Why is is that you do not hear people say :Well, the Romans made advances in engineering, military technology, city planning and government but hey, none of that justifies the fact that they conquered many lands, slaughtered a lot of natives and killed people for amusement!".

As for your first source, it has some very egregious and laughable errors right off the bat that makes me question the legitimacy of the whole thing. Firstly, it claims that capitalism only developed in the West, which is ridiculous. Capitalism was very much alive and well in many parts of the world outside of Europe, as most evident in the Indian Ocean trade routes and the silk road. There were limited varieties of capitalism, sure, but capitalism as an essential system existed far and wide. Industrial capitalism is what rose in the West, and that didn't come until much later and only with the advent of new technologies.

Secondly, your first source claims that levels of science and technology in the "three great non-christian cultures" was crippled by various things. He then goes on to claim this was not the case in Europe, and again he is wrong. The Muslim caliphates and Chinese dynasties had massive scientific and cultural outputs at a time when Europe sat in its "Dark Ages*," producing comparatively little. Of course, later in history Europe began to surpass their rivals, however this was actually after substantial weakening of the Church's influence.

On to your next source: it is a blog. I will address it anyways, but for future reference you should avoid using blogs as a reference. So it's central claim was that there were massive scientific and technological advancements in the middle ages, and that these were fueled by the Church. I think they are overblowing the scientific output of middle age Europeans. Besides that problem, there is one other obvious one: the fact that technological progress after the middle ages, when the Church was at its weakest ever, blew everything else out of the water. So sure, the Church supported science in that time, but one can't ignore the fact that after a weakening of the Church's power a massive technological revolution occurred.

I know Islam and all these other religions committed atrocities, and they also had many positive influences, just like the Church. Your point that "other religious authorities have committed atrocities too" is irrelevant.

Finally, with your plea for me to cite an example of a better force. That's not how arguments work. I am not the one claiming that the Church was the largest positive force. You are the one making a claim, so it's your job to substantiate it. Not mine.

I know the church has done a lot of good, but it has also done a lot of bad. I'm not saying the Church was evil in this argument, I'm merely saying that it's legacy is complicated and that to claim it's overall influence was positive is disingenuous.

Oh, and as for your final question: I don't know why people don't say that about Rome. Perhaps they are historically ignorant. Advances in science and culture do not justify genocides and atrocities.

[The Laxus Union]

I am an Agnostic Atheist. I despise Abrahamic religions most out of all religions.

[Papal Republics]

I am a Roman Catholic. But I respect all religious/irreligious beliefs.

[Menassa]

I am a Roman Catholic. But I respect all religious/irreligious beliefs.

Were you always a part of the Holy Mother Church?

[Papal Republics]

I am a Roman Catholic. But I respect all religious/irreligious beliefs.

Were you always a part of the Holy Mother Church?

I was born and raised one. However, in the 7th grade I went through a non-denominational Christian period. And just recently, I went through an irreligious period.

I went back though.

[Captiotia]

Nonreligious because I'm a materialist, and there's no proof, blah blah typical atheist reasons. I hate "new atheism" though, and the smug superiority and bourgeois character of the big new atheists. Also, I dislike how many of them seem to think that atheists are the most prosecuted of all groups. I align myself with what is best for the masses, and religious control of a society in which there live people who are not members of that religion is not. Personally, however, everybody has the right to their own religious beliefs and spirituality.

[Lalaki]

Nonreligious because I'm a materialist, and there's no proof, blah blah typical atheist reasons. I hate "new atheism" though, and the smug superiority and bourgeois character of the big new atheists. Also, I dislike how many of them seem to think that atheists are the most prosecuted of all groups. I align myself with what is best for the masses, and religious control of a society in which there live people who are not members of that religion is not. Personally, however, everybody has the right to their own religious beliefs and spirituality.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

[Menassa]

Nonreligious because I'm a materialist, and there's no proof, blah blah typical atheist reasons. I hate "new atheism" though, and the smug superiority and bourgeois character of the big new atheists. Also, I dislike how many of them seem to think that atheists are the most prosecuted of all groups. I align myself with what is best for the masses, and religious control of a society in which there live people who are not members of that religion is not. Personally, however, everybody has the right to their own religious beliefs and spirituality.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

But you are Christian no?

[Lalaki]

I agree with a lot of what you say.

But you are Christian no?

I am. But I was referring to his thoughts on New Atheism, and people having the right to their own beliefs/spirituality.

[Menassa]

But you are Christian no?

I am. But I was referring to his thoughts on New Atheism, and people having the right to their own beliefs/spirituality.

People generally do have rights to belief...

[Gingeska]

Agnostic... the most sensible view.

[Gezi Park]

I don't have faith, but if I had to pick one it'd be Shinto.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Agnostic... the most sensible view.

As has been stated many times before in this thread, that has nothing to do with your beliefs. Agnosticism or Gnosticism are knowledge claims, you're either an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist.

[Menassa]

I don't have faith, but if I had to pick one it'd be Shinto.

Why?

[Gingeska]

Agnostic... the most sensible view.

As has been stated many times before in this thread, that has nothing to do with your beliefs. Agnosticism or Gnosticism are knowledge claims, you're either an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist.

I am agnostic.

When it comes to theism or atheism I have no belief either way.

I just don't know if god exists (hence Agnostic).
and if I don't know why should I take a guess as to if god actually exists or not?

...hence "Agnostic" ... Which believe it or not I know the definition of

Unless you want to call me atheist by the lack of my belief in theism, sure.
but I try to distance myself from that word because for the average person "Atheist = gnostic atheist"

[Gezi Park]

I don't have faith, but if I had to pick one it'd be Shinto.

Why?

...Because it's cool?

[Gingeska]

Honestly to pick theist or atheist, I'd just flip a coin.

[Menassa]

Honestly to pick theist or atheist, I'd just flip a coin.

What?

[Gingeska]

Honestly to pick theist or atheist, I'd just flip a coin.

What?

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

[Othelos]

What?

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

That's apatheism, which is a derivative of atheism.

[Gingeska]

Heads is atheism, tails is theism.

Here we go.. heads.

Alright, I guess there's no god.

AKA, I don't care to have a belief either way.

That's apatheism, which is a derivative of atheism.

Well damn, didn't know there was a word for that.

In that case, I'm Apatheist

[Gingeska]

Or "Apathetic agnosticism".

"No amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest"

Pretty much that right there.

Maybe there is a god, maybe not-- but it doesn't have a direct impact in my life anyway since even if god does exist he's not coming to my house and preforming miracles.

I think "God" is just another word for reality and the laws of nature anyway.

[Othelos]

Or "Apathetic agnosticism".

"No amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest"

Pretty much that right there.

Maybe there is a god, maybe not-- but it doesn't have a direct impact in my life anyway since even if god does exist he's not coming to my house and preforming miracles.

I think "God" is just another word for reality and the laws of nature anyway.

apathetic agnostic apatheist atheist ✓