Allied Governments wrote:Also, are you implying you want to fuck your sister? You realize how unnatural that is?
posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=515046
Advertisement
by Straughn » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:45 am
Allied Governments wrote:Also, are you implying you want to fuck your sister? You realize how unnatural that is?
by Straughn » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:46 am
Fixed.Martaz wrote:Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral for all the wrong reasons
by Lycandom » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:52 pm
by Straughn » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:46 amfor all the wrong reasonsMartaz wrote:
Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral
Fixed.
by Treznor » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:44 pmLycandom wrote:
Look Buffett, I'm not saying you're doing it, but face it it happens and it happens largely to religious people. Look at France, great example their recent laws are oppressive toward Muslim women.
Oppression is real and I stand by what I said in my last post. When it reaches that point enough is enough. Regardless of whether you believe or do what is being oppressed or not you shouldn't let oppression happen.
Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?
by UnhealthyTruthseeker
From what I've seen of Lycandom, criticism = oppression. Dawkins is oppressive because even though he doesn't want to outlaw religion, he calls it bad names like "delusion"!
by Kobrania » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:49 pm
How is that oppressive?! I don't call people oppressive if they call me fag or beat me shitless, I call them oppressive if they try to stop me having sex or making out in public.
by Treznor » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:57 pm
Lycandom wrote:by Treznor » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:44 pmLycandom wrote:
Look Buffett, I'm not saying you're doing it, but face it it happens and it happens largely to religious people. Look at France, great example their recent laws are oppressive toward Muslim women.
Oppression is real and I stand by what I said in my last post. When it reaches that point enough is enough. Regardless of whether you believe or do what is being oppressed or not you shouldn't let oppression happen.
Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?
The difference between oppression and criticism is:
Oppression - The act of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. The feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. - Biggest religious example - The Holocaust.
A.K.A. Restricting someone's right to believe. Speaking out in a hateful manner. Perfect example happened right before your eyes on this thread. The guy who said that people shouldn't be allowed to practice religion is a form of verbal oppression. Telling someone what to think is a form of oppression, minor, but real.
Criticism - Democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will <------ (OPPRESSION).
This is discussing, key word, democratically. This means freely and allowing the other person to have their thoughts. For example, let's go small. When you got an english paper back in high school. Let's say you got an A. There were still be suggestions and criticisms written on the paper. Ideas added to yours and things to contemplate. Never was their a mandate that said you had to think this way because your way is "delusional".
That's the real difference.
by Straughn » Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:16 am
I've noted that italics are highly underrated for some reason. Perhaps sometimes you don't hear me, because sometimes (i'm speaking in parentheses).Lycandom wrote:So you are saying you shouldn't be moral because it is the right thing to do?
True. You shouldn't, however, assume that you have morality because you have a code of conduct. That was my point, there, about the italics and all.Lycandom wrote:You should be moral because you should care about your fellow people.
Chez what? You should worry less about seeming and more about being.Lycandom wrote:You seem to believe that there is nothing after death so how do you want to spend your life?
Why capitalise that? The car? Pthpt.Lycandom wrote:Sitting there criticizing people who believe something different then you to the point that you look intolerant or do you want to do something useful for mankind. For others to come and spread tolerance. The second one sounds best to me. Its called a Legacy.
Why bother. It's the works and deeds, not the seems. Do the right thing for what you are and you won't have to worry about what others remember. You shouldn't anyway, since it won't matter that much.Lycandom wrote:Something good to be remembered by.
We hold these truths to be self-evident ....
by Lycandom » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:02 pm
So, why is it that religious folk always scream "OPPRESSION" whenever someone brings up criticism? Like, say, you claim that religion is necessary for morality, and someone challenges it on the grounds of it being utter nonsense?
by Martaz » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:16 pm
by Tunizcha » Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:24 pm
Martaz wrote:Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.
most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"
by Lycandom » Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:00 pm
Tunizcha wrote:Martaz wrote:Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.
most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"
Just because something is recurrent doesn't mean that it's horribly, horribly misguided. Especially if its recurrence traces back to ancient civilizations that started paganism, bigotry, slaughtering, etc.
Elitism? If that is your way of saying that some of us partake in science rather than inane superstition, than thank you. I'd rather put my faith in a methodology of observational data and non-bias than your set of baseless beliefs.
by The Alma Mater » Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:46 pm
Lycandom wrote:I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious.
by Reploid Productions » Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:29 am
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by Pure Metal » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:27 am
Lycandom wrote:by Straughn » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:46 amfor all the wrong reasonsMartaz wrote:
Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral
Fixed.
So you are saying you shouldn't be moral because it is the right thing to do? That makes absolutely no sense at all. You should be moral because you should care about your fellow people.
by Krypton-Zod » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:35 am
Allied Governments wrote:
Because he's not in a situation that calls for it, if I was in a Mosque I'd certainly do it, or if I was with Muslims I would certainly do it.
by Krypton-Zod » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:43 am
Martaz wrote:I'm catholic but even if my religion will be proven false i continue to support it ......Religion is needed for keep people away from stealing,murdering,raping etc etc and be moral
I don't want a world where people can walk on the street naked or fucking their sister
communism regime were atheist and kill million of people...
Treznor wrote:Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?
by Katganistan » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:46 am
Treznor wrote:Lycandom wrote:by Treznor » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:44 pmLycandom wrote:
Look Buffett, I'm not saying you're doing it, but face it it happens and it happens largely to religious people. Look at France, great example their recent laws are oppressive toward Muslim women.
Oppression is real and I stand by what I said in my last post. When it reaches that point enough is enough. Regardless of whether you believe or do what is being oppressed or not you shouldn't let oppression happen.
Query: what's the difference between challenging someone's claims and oppressing them?
The difference between oppression and criticism is:
Oppression - The act of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. The feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. - Biggest religious example - The Holocaust.
A.K.A. Restricting someone's right to believe. Speaking out in a hateful manner. Perfect example happened right before your eyes on this thread. The guy who said that people shouldn't be allowed to practice religion is a form of verbal oppression. Telling someone what to think is a form of oppression, minor, but real.
Criticism - Democratic judgment over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is meant as an absolute realization of the authority's will <------ (OPPRESSION).
This is discussing, key word, democratically. This means freely and allowing the other person to have their thoughts. For example, let's go small. When you got an english paper back in high school. Let's say you got an A. There were still be suggestions and criticisms written on the paper. Ideas added to yours and things to contemplate. Never was their a mandate that said you had to think this way because your way is "delusional".
That's the real difference.
So, why is it that religious folk always scream "OPPRESSION" whenever someone brings up criticism? Like, say, you claim that religion is necessary for morality, and someone challenges it on the grounds of it being utter nonsense?
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:57 am
Lycandom wrote:Tunizcha wrote:Martaz wrote:Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.
most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"
Just because something is recurrent doesn't mean that it's horribly, horribly misguided. Especially if its recurrence traces back to ancient civilizations that started paganism, bigotry, slaughtering, etc.
Elitism? If that is your way of saying that some of us partake in science rather than inane superstition, than thank you. I'd rather put my faith in a methodology of observational data and non-bias than your set of baseless beliefs.
So you think you're the only ones that believe science? You're all more misguided then I thought. You think the millions upon millions of religious people don't believe a word of science including the ones that are scientists. That's horribly, horribly misguided if you ask me.
And go blaming religion again as your scapegoat for the way people act. Slaughtering and bigotry were not created by religions. People used religions to excuse those actions. Get it straight. They do it today and it's about time everyone wise up. People are accountable for their actions. Just because they claim they are the same religion as me or that they are a different religion doesn't mean that thier religion truly had anything to do with it or that the people from their religion largely support their actions. In fact, if you believe that they do then you really don't get it.
My faith isn't baseless just like yours isn't. Mine is based off of eyewitnesses historical accounts for one instance. Yours is based off of countless theories by multiple people. Among those people I'm sure, if you believe in gravity for one, are religious scientists who apparently believe baseless things.
If you lash out and say that my beliefs are misguided and baseless then what I get is you won't even attempt to understand nor want to coexist in a peaceful area together. My ideal world would be one where people like you could get over it and get along with people like me. Sometimes that doesn't happen. There are a ton of atheists and a ton of religious people who get along great its when you draw lines and make unfounded claims where people start to get argumentative. And the whole live and let live or why can't we just talk about something else or why can't we just respect one another as intelligent humans becomes null because people don't want to hear that.
Anecdote: Think before you speak. If you don't understand religion, which from your above statement about baseless (I guess you never heard of religious texts or the ability of the human brain to believe something else other than what yours does) I get that you really don't understand. You can't empathize and get others well who have different beliefs. That's alright. Just don't make claims that are baseless please. Science and religion are companions and if you don't like it too bad. If you think you're special because you don't believe a word of religion than think again because science itself is based upon religion and religious people galore. So either wise up and look it up and learn the truth or live in your world where you think there is a clear cut picture, black and white of science and religion because in reality there are a lot of gray areas.
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone has their reasons, virtually making baseless beliefs not real.
The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, Citadel Press (2000), written by John Galbraith Simmons.
This is a list of great scientists who were religious, crazy? No because I've been saying the entire time that religion and science aren't opposites.
- (Anglican) - Isaac Newton [gravity, calculus, optics]
- (Jewish) - Albert Einstein [General relativity, Special relativity, Photoelectric effect, etc.], John von Neumann [became Catholic - Game thoery, many theorems], Paul Ehrlich [autoimmunity studies], J. Robert Oppenheimer [Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb creation], Edward Teller [Hydrogen Bomb], Jonas Salk [Polio vaccine]
- (Jewish - Lutheran) - Neils Bohr [Physics, Bohr Model], Max Born [Nobel Prize for Physics 1954]
- (Anglican/Unitarian - became Agnostic) - Charles Darwin [Natural Selection and Origin of the Species]
- (Catholic) - Galileo Galilei [Astronomy, Kinematics, Dynamics], Antoine Laurent Lavoisier [Father of Modern Chemistry], Louis Pasteur [germ theory, pasteurization, immunology], Nicolaus Copernicus (Priest) [Astronomy, canon law, medicine], Erwin Schrodinger [Nobel Prize in Physics 1933], Gregor Mendel (Priest) [Discovered Genetics], Alexander Fleming [Nobel Prize Physics 1945, penicillin]
- (Lutheran) - Johannes Kepler [Planetary Motion], Werner Heisenberg [Uncertainty principle, Matrix mechanics, Nobel Prize Physics 1932]
- (Protestant) - Max Planck [Nobel Prize Physics 1918, father executed by gestapo, Planck's Constant]
- (Calvinist) - Christiaan Huygens [First Theoretical Physicist]
- (Quaker) - John Dalton [Atomic Theory, Law of Multiple Proportions]
- (Catholic Priest) - Georges Lemaître [Creator of the Big Bang Theory - he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom']
I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious. Maybe you'll think again before saying religion is the opposite of science. Science was founded by many religious minds after all.
And that is just a short list of scientists, there are other great minds of the world including writers, politicians, activists, etc. It isn't crazy or delusional or unfounded to believe something another person doesn't its called being different and its not that bad.
by Carbarosia » Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:03 am
by Krypton-Zod » Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:10 am
Lycandom wrote:This is a list of great scientists who were religious, crazy? No because I've been saying the entire time that religion and science aren't opposites.
- (Anglican) - Isaac Newton [gravity, calculus, optics]
- (Jewish) - Albert Einstein [General relativity, Special relativity, Photoelectric effect, etc.], John von Neumann [became Catholic - Game thoery, many theorems], Paul Ehrlich [autoimmunity studies], J. Robert Oppenheimer [Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb creation], Edward Teller [Hydrogen Bomb], Jonas Salk [Polio vaccine]
- (Jewish - Lutheran) - Neils Bohr [Physics, Bohr Model], Max Born [Nobel Prize for Physics 1954]
- (Anglican/Unitarian - became Agnostic) - Charles Darwin [Natural Selection and Origin of the Species]
- (Catholic) - Galileo Galilei [Astronomy, Kinematics, Dynamics], Antoine Laurent Lavoisier [Father of Modern Chemistry], Louis Pasteur [germ theory, pasteurization, immunology], Nicolaus Copernicus (Priest) [Astronomy, canon law, medicine], Erwin Schrodinger [Nobel Prize in Physics 1933], Gregor Mendel (Priest) [Discovered Genetics], Alexander Fleming [Nobel Prize Physics 1945, penicillin]
- (Lutheran) - Johannes Kepler [Planetary Motion], Werner Heisenberg [Uncertainty principle, Matrix mechanics, Nobel Prize Physics 1932]
- (Protestant) - Max Planck [Nobel Prize Physics 1918, father executed by gestapo, Planck's Constant]
- (Calvinist) - Christiaan Huygens [First Theoretical Physicist]
- (Quaker) - John Dalton [Atomic Theory, Law of Multiple Proportions]
- (Catholic Priest) - Georges Lemaître [Creator of the Big Bang Theory - he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom']
I guess it isn't so delusional after all, some of the greatest minds to walk the Earth ever were religious. Maybe you'll think again before saying religion is the opposite of science. Science was founded by many religious minds after all.
by Lycandom » Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:53 am
by Krypton-Zod
Once you challenge religion, the religious folks will always scream 'oppression' because they cannot rebut your challenge. To the religious folks, tolerance is a one way street. Everyone's gotta tolerate their beliefs, but the religious never reciprocate.
Religion is and always has been the strongest retrograde force on the planet.
by Pure Metal
by The Alma Mater
I do hope you realise your list includes people like EInstein, Darwin and Galilei - people who, as their knowledge progressed, started to actively contradict the teachings of Christianity and renounced their faith - though they did remain spiritual.
by The Alma Mater » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:13 pm
Lycandom wrote:by The Alma Mater
I do hope you realise your list includes people like EInstein, Darwin and Galilei - people who, as their knowledge progressed, started to actively contradict the teachings of Christianity and renounced their faith - though they did remain spiritual.
I do hope you realize that you just contradicted yourself in your own sentence to prove me wrong.
No, none of their physics formulas or their star gazings or their adaptation principles contradict religion at all.
by Deus Malum » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:18 pm
Martaz wrote:Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.
most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"
by Bottle » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:18 pm
Lycandom wrote:We don't think our beliefs are baseless because, like you we see through our eyes and with our brain. Therefore, your convictions are just as strong as ours and we see lots of evidence where you see none and we see lots of issues where you see none. That's what no one here seems to get.
Lycandom wrote:If you project yourself into another person, empathy, then you may realize that different people are different and they can believe something you don't, its okay and there isn't anything bad about it. In fact, religion "saves" a lot of people's lives.
Lycandom wrote:Like that guy before who said religion should be removed. I bet he says religious people as a whole, but he can't comprehend nor look in the faces of each and every one of those millions of men, women, and children and tell them that we are taking your right to believe what you want away. He couldn't because he's just all talk. He wouldn't be able stand before the masses and declare his dictatorship.
Lycandom wrote:This is the real issue. None of you guys can rise above your conclusions about religion even when vastly different religious people sit here and tell you that no, not all religious people believe science is evil.
Lycandom wrote:Science does not contradict religion especially Christianity largely.
Lycandom wrote:Science has never and will never make the discover that there is no God, but that doesn't mean there is no God (or that there is ).
Lycandom wrote:I just wish that someone on here would realize that it is vastly ridiculous for you to want to take a person's right away to use their own imagination, their own mind, and their own conclusion skills to come to their own beliefs.
Lycandom wrote:If you guys don't UNDERSTAND the difference between oppression and criticism I would be happy to explain it to no avail for the six hundredth time. And I would also like to point out that if after all the years humans have been oppressing others in all countries across the world you do not believe in oppression then you can't be helped. Sorry, but you are too far gone from normal society if you don't understand criticism vs. oppression on this thread since we have been talking about it for like 3 weeks now. Please look back at previous posts and read it very carefully maybe you'll get it then. If all you can say is your little jabs at oh religious people claim oppression when I'm just telling them they're dumb then don't because plenty of damn criticizers on here have said that (even though that's not a criticism its a statement of idiocy and non-educatedness). No, for the last time, saying you don't believe and listing your reasons is not oppression that, students, is criticism. Saying let's take away people's rights to believe what they want (a.k.a. removing the "retrograde" known as religion) is oppression.
Lycandom wrote:"...though religious conflicts are born of myths, those myths endure because they bring people together."
by Treznor » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:50 pm
by Pope Joan » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:06 pm
Martaz wrote:Humans are hard-wired to believe in something,points me an atheist ancients civilization.
most atheist wants feel themself parts of an "elite"
by Topid » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:01 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hidrandia, Philjia, Quincy, Spirit of Hope
Advertisement