Summer means no religion or politics?

[Vince Twelve]

Vince, you're just being mean.

Now I'm more confused.  Where have I been anything remotely approaching mean?

Edit: Miguel, I think that there's either a language barrier thing or you're interpretting someone who disagrees with you as someone who is hostile.  Nothing that I have said in this thread had any mean spirit to it.  I even posted a comic to try and lighten the mood!

I don't mind anyone having beliefs that differ from mine.  I did take issue with one statement (and not a statement of yours) that was worded as an absolute, when I believed it was not an absolute.  My statement of disagreement included words such as "perhaps" and "I think".  If you interpret that as mean, then you need to loosen up a little.

Or maybe it was me expressing confusion at this thread?  Was that mean?  I was really confused!

[discordance]

Happy people are much more prone to procreate; a primitive, isolated society a few thousand years ago surely was much more likely to flourish and expand if they helped each other rather than kill off themselves over food.

Well, that works too. It's just another hypothesis, though, albeit one with the advantage of not needing a God. As usual I haven't managed to prove much of anything.
Incidentally, I never meant to indicate that no god = everyone an amoral egoist (the belief tends to be that without a god there wouldn't be any people at all).
I suppose what I'm really trying to get at is this. If you see someone in trouble, and know that saving them would require putting your own life in peril, two instincts would start banging around in your head. One would say, "Save the genes, brother, your seed must live on." The other would say, "Save the unfortunate fellow man, it's for the good of the tribe." And then there's something ELSE, a third thing, that's telling you that the "moral" thing to do is to save the unfortunate fellow man. Another layer of instinct telling you what instinct is the right instinct?

Also, I will happily join your war on creationists, KrisMUC, they drive me nuts too! Is using bombs okay? 

[Nacho]

Jesus...
Everyone's entitled to their opinion!
And everyone's entitled to question that opinion!
But everyone is not entitled to call other people stupid, illogical, lost cases!

Don't lie. I never used the word stupid in this thread. "Nacho' s offensive word 1" replied.

Now... Illogical.

Do we agree that "GOD" is something supernatural? Okay.
Supernatural=Something that is not of the usual. Something that is somehow not natural, or has been altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.
Illogical=Opposite to logical.

"Offensive word 2" replied.

What do we have? Lost cases? Okay... Now, put your hand in your heart, and tell me that you would intevene and threaten to lock a thread if DG MacPhee says in a political thread something like: "People who voted for Bush, when he is obviously the worst president of the United States ever,  is so blind that they are lost causes".

Would you? Thanks... I also think you would not.

So, proved that the three sentences that annoyed you are not provokative. Actually, I think you are the only one who keeps me posting here and the only one who reacted about it. Relax. Think as a moderator and examine yourself... Maybe it' s you who act different when hears the world "religion" and start acting differently.

And please, don't quote me uncorrectly again...

[Nacho]

But throughout history, there have been people who gave up a lot (e.g. their lives) to help other people, at no apparent benefit to themselves. Why did they do that? Insanity? Peer pressure? Obviously the self-preservation instinct sometimes fails to kick in.

Because of the "Reward". People is not behaving morally, actually... They are just "getting points" for go to Heaven.

[Oliwerko]

Also, religion is not God. The validity of Organized Religion and the existence of God are separate arguments.

That has some point.
As for my opinion on this, I have experience of "members" of the "organized" part of religion being often much more selfish, mean and arrogant than people that just use common sense and don't believe in anything (or at least say so).
I've had this neighbor - the whole family used to visit church every sunday, they absolutely adhered to all the "official rules" of catholic religion, I've nothing against that.

But he wouldn't even greet me when we met, just because he knew I did not go to church, I did not do all the things a "true catholic has to". Now that's what they are taught to be? That's love and peace?

That's just one example that comes to my mind right now, I could come up with more. More and more disappointing experiences with people that claim believe, and claim to be the "true" catholics, based purely on singing songs in church and whatnot. Why do people like that think that they are "better" than the others?

Is a man that's arrogant, selfish and violent but goes to church and so on valued more than a person that's pure goodness bud doesn't do these things?

As for me personally, I don't go to church, I don't do any "organized" type of thing. I don't give a shit if I call the thing I believe in God or Allah or Rapidshare or whatever, I just try to do everything the best I can. I don't need this organized type of thing. People made it. And usually anything that people make is in some way ridiculous.

I partly agree that belief is irrational. On one hand, you have no proof, etc. All the arguments that were mentioned. On the other hand, it's a pretty rational way to boost your motivation, get some "artifical" help when you're in need, have someone to talk to or such. I wouldn't call it totally irrational, it's just a bit....weird.

[Khris]

KhrisMUC, please be serious, you're smarter than that. God's plan is very simple but I will not bother to tell you about it.

[...]

if a child is raised into a religion, no mater what that may be, doesn't mean the grown man will follow it. Actually, during teenage years (who many of you haven't overcome yet) the same individuals tend to rebel against it. The grown man, and I mean the man that is responsible for others, will then chose what to believe. This is logical.

You haven't really answered my remark about cancer. Why is it that bad stuff does happen to good people? Seriously, what's the common explanation among Christians?

More often than not, if a child is raised into religion, they won't question any of it later on. Maybe a few of the overwhelming lot of inconsistencies and contradictions, but of course there's an answer for everything ("God works in mysterious ways," etc.). And belief is designed in such a way that even events that should shatter it will often strengthen it. People who lose their belief are in general well educated, informed people.
If you look at youtube videos that are part of the ongoing creationist/atheist battle, just comparing the eloquence and quality of arguments on both sides will speak for itself.

The church does know full well that they have to get them when they're little. It's like the belief in Santa Claus, only nobody tells the kid at 6 that he doesn't really exist.
If all religious parents were to change their upbringing and waited until their children are 15 to introduce them to their religion, the atheist percentage would skyrocket.

[Nacho]

Khris, now I miss quoting "Einstein's" stalement about "abscense of God is evil, as cold is absence of heat". (Saying that that was told by Einstein is false as a wooden dollar, though..."
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm

Einstein's idea about religion was closer to this:
http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_religion.html

But let' s get deeper into KhrisMUC' s opinion...  Why don' t you, believers, allow kids to be raised "religion free", and allow them to decide when they are adults? Are you so scared about an adult opinion about all the supernatural stuff in religion that you have to put it into kids' minds? Sad. Really sad.

Believers of "God" are like believers of UFOs in the sense that they don't care if belief "A" is completelly different to belief "B". At least you believe in something... you are "better" than those atheistics! Do you believe that the earth was created by a giant turtle? Okay, I believe that it was created in six days by a man who looks like me, but I don't care! Let's  fight those heretics!!!

I once was in a TV show... they were two "abducted" guys.
-The aliens who abducted me came from Ganimedi...
-Really? The ones that abducted me are "intraterrestians", they come from the center of the earth, and they told me that we haven' t been visited by ETs outer from solar system.
Do you think that those guys started to argue because one belief was excludent from the other? No... they joined forces and started to fight the skeptiks. Very rational...

Same with religions. Let' s do an experiment... let' s put some couples of humans that have been "religion free" raised in the middle of the Amazon jungle and let's see if that population believe in the judeo-christian God after some generations. After 200 years, the antropologist come back to the jungle and the descendants do believe in some kind of "jaguar-shaped God which created the jungle 10,000 moons ago after pooing some seeds it had eaten from the Big Tree of life". And then, the believer antropologist comes and says: "See??? They believe in God! The existence of God is proved! Humans believe in something supernatural, it must be intuitive! It must come from above!!!".

No. "They don't believe in GOD". They developed a belief in "some god". The only thing that the experiment proves is that humans are superstitious and, with nothing better to use, they try to explain they can't understand with something.

[Misj']

Claiming that God is is irrational means that someone states - as a fact - that there is no logical reason behind such a belief. I, however, believe that there are many logical reasonings that thrive people to believe that there is a God. Whether I agree with these reasoning or not doesn't matter here: if there is a logical reasoning behind it than it is not irrational.

I know people who believe in something vague, I know people who go to church every week, and I know people who just don't care, and I know people who are atheists to the bone. I even know irrational people...in each of these categories. To me the irrational people are those who claim that those who have a different reasoning are irrational and illogical, because there is no way to discuss a subject with these people using rational thoughts and logical arguments.

To quote Robert Quillen: "discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance".

[Andail]

Riiiiight.
Nacho, my man, take a look at this;

Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different.

How is this not unnecessarily provocative and rude?

Alright, I'm not your father, so I obviously can't teach you manners, but take a look at why your statements and similes have been wrong:

Why is it wrong to claim that everyone with a faith are illogical? Well, they simply aren't! I can name several people who believe in God who have a logical mind far greater than either of us, Nacho. Remember that a belief in God is not per definition a belief in a bearded man sitting in the sky listening to our prayers and selecting who to save. Great philosophers and scientists have believed in some sort of God, Descartes, Spinoza and Einstein to mention some. They are not illogical people, Nacho. Believing in God or not is beyond logics. It's another ballpark.

Then why is not illogical to believe in God? Because ultimately, our existence isn't logical! We can't really take a look at ourselves and claim that it's only logical that we sit here, chatting on the Internet, because it's beyond pure logics. Sure, after Big Bang we could suppose that the cause and effect chain deterministically leads to this very situation. But before Big Bang, things sort of cease to be logical the way we know it. It either had to start at one point, or it must always have been existing. You could also claim that since nothing existed prior to Big Bang there also was no time, and without an extension in the temporal dimension there can be no "before" and thus we're not in need of an "initial mover".
But these are things you can say, things you have learnt by heart when you read those first book about the universe, because it sure as heck isn't logical. None of us can honestly say that we understand this. I sure don't, and I have half a meter in my book shelf worth of science books, and I even have some university credits in logics (as a part of a philosophy course), and from the books in my shelves I can say these phrases, like a parrot, "before big bang this and that happened", but it's way beyond our capability to understand. Please don't claim that you understand this Nacho. I would maybe believe you if I knew that you had studied science in any shape or form, but I don't think you have, except for browsing websites about scepticism.
So, with all this, why is it so disastrously illogical to invent just one more entity, another force, the initial mover, that starts off everything and adds a sense of unity and reason to our existence. I'm not saying I believe in this myself, because I don't, but I sure as heck don't see it as exceedingly illogical.

Why is it wrong to compare believing in God with believing in Smurfs? Because we know exactly how and when and by whom the Smurfs were created. They were created by Peyo in the fifties. Secondly, they were never intended to explain anything about the universe or our existence. Nobody, except children and a few lunatics, would ever believe them to be real, or to have some sort of existentialistic function.
Same goes for Luke Skywalker. You only brought these examples in to make religion seem stupid, when in fact they're totally irrelevant.

The reason I ask you to change that condescending tone of voice of yours is because it deters sane religious people from entering these debates. All you're left with are the hard headed fundamentalists. And then you have a "debate" where one single stubborn newcomer is going to face all the self-proclaimed masters of logics in this community.  

[Nacho]

Funny... You are the only one that refers to me in that terms... You are the only one that feels provoked, or offended...

Maybe the problem are not "my words"? Maybe the problem is "Andail and what Nacho says"?

Think of it.

I must concede to believers that they have done a much better exercise of trying to understand and tolerate me than you... Sad for a moderator.

So, to summarise, yes... You are not my father. I am not going to change my behaviour for what you say or write... Specially if nobody else complains. If there are 99 people in the room telling me something and only one telling me to do the other I use to think that thise solo man is not right, you know?

Well... can we go on topic?

EDIT: Would changing "Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different" for "Being a believer needs such an ideological compromise that is very difficult to discuss with them" work? Consider it done.

[Nacho]

Why is it wrong to compare believing in God with believing in Smurfs? Because we know exactly how and when and by whom the Smurfs were created. They were created by Peyo in the fifties. Secondly, they were never intended to explain anything about the universe or our existence. Nobody, except children and a few lunatics, would ever believe them to be real, or to have some sort of existentialistic function.
Same goes for Luke Skywalker. You only brought these examples in to make religion seem stupid, when in fact they're totally irrelevant.

We know when the Judeo-Christian God was created, and by who.

Smurfs do not intend to explain anything about universe or our existence? Well... Bible is not a physics book, ergo, it does not intent to explain anything about universe. Is bible a morale book? Every book of smurfs has 3 or 4 morale conclussions.

And... what don't you change "Smurfs" with "Greek mythology"? It had everything that you considered "good" about religions... No certain origin, tries to explains our origins as well, had many followers... But nobody complains if someone says "Hey, guys... Greek mythology is illogical". Why people do when we do the same about nowadays religions?

Because the nowadays religions are modern? Ok, so, we can say that an old illogical belief was not correct (Heliocentrism) but we can't say that an illogical modern belief is. We can't say that telechinesis is illogical. Good.

Because they have lots of followers? Okay, so, according to you... we must not fight illogical beliefs if they have some amount of followers? Where is the line? What is the valour of "X" followers that makes a belief undebatable?

We can't fight nazism, communism, racism, fascism if they reach an X numbers of followers? Okay.

I am not comparing... But I am say that we can discuss... and that we can discuss in the very exact terms as if we were having a relaxed, mature discussion about politics, football or science... without fear of someone stepping into and yelling "Hey!!! Be carefull! Illogic? you said illogic??? That' s offensive!!!"

As said, if it's you who behave different when hears the world "religion", it's you who has a problem, not me.

[Andail]

Funny... You are the only one that refers to me in that terms... You are the only one that feels provoked, or offended...

Wrong, I don't feel offended, as I'm not religious myself.

Maybe the problem are not "my words"? Maybe the problem is "Andail and what Nacho says"?

I just want you to be a better man. It would help you in the future to be more open minded towards believers.

I must concede to believers that they have done a much better exercise of trying to understand and tolerate me than you... Sad for a moderator.

Hm? I understand you perfectly. Just trying to make you behave. That's what moderators do.

So, to summarise, yes... You are not my father. I am not going to change my behaviour for what you say or write... Specially if nobody else complains. If there are 99 people in the room telling me something and only one telling me to do the other I use to think that thise solo man is not right, you know?

Well... can we go on topic?

I am on topic! I wrote an entire post on the topic. Please read it, I think it's pretty good!

EDIT: Would changing "Those who believe in God have such a deep throath to swallow illogical things that it's just silly to try to convince them of something different" for "Being a believer needs such an ideological compromise that is very difficult to discuss with them" work? Consider it done.

What? You just said nothing I said would make you change your behaviour! Ah well, I think it's getting better, yes.

Well, gotta go to work now, catch you later

Edit: Oh, double post.
I think you missed some important stuff I said there. You keep repeating that the bible is comparable to the Smurfs and stuff. I'm not talking about the bible, nor am I picturing a big bearded dude in the sky. I told you some stuff about our creation hardly being logical, did you miss all that?

Because they have followers? Okay, so, according to you... we must not fight illogical beliefs if they have some amount of followers? Where is the line? What is the valour of "X" followers that makes a belief undebatable?

You are free to debate everything! Nothing is undebatable! It's how you debate I'm complaining on! Jeesh.

[Nacho]

I did something to behave better, contradicting myself! ^_^ You must be proud!

There are some "on topic" lines in an edit above... Looking forwards for your surelly interesting reply.

[Misj']

Funny... You are the only one that refers to me in that terms... You are the only one that feels provoked, or offended...

Maybe the problem are not "my words"? Maybe the problem is "Andail and what Nacho says"?

Think of it.

I must concede to believers that they have done a much better exercise of trying to understand and tolerate me than you... Sad for a moderator.

I don't really like to get personal, but the way you express yourself causes me to have very little respect for you opinion (and as a consequence for you). In addition, you have shown - in my opinion - very little respect for those who do not share your point of view, and from what I read (in this thread as well as earlier threads on a similar subject) you try to force your - in your opinion superior - views onto others. That kind of behaviour indeed offends me; independent of the subject. It is also the reason why I steer away from arguments with fanatics and fundamentalists (I chose these words for the emotion that they evoke). However...regarding the way you express yourself: I'm with Andail.

Ps. I have no intention of attacking you as a person.

[Tuomas]

I must say, after reading here for quite a while, that I'm with Andail. I mean, I didn't want to go there, to mess his job as the moderator, but I agree, that you do come out as pretty offensive, Nacho. And that might not be intentional, but it sure isn't the reader's fault, that they interpret you wrong. I mean, if you're writing an essay, you have to get the message through with what you write, not afterwards through explaining how the sensor should have interpreted it. It's not shallow poetry, it's forum debate, and basically everyone's entitled to an opinion, you too, but if the tone is, as it is, too offensive, in the way, that it makes people uncomfortable, well it creates a situation where no-one really wins. And that's where I think Andail would be right to close this thread unless we could get it backto light hearted discussion again. I mean, we can discuss religion too without debate, can't we?

[miguel]

Vince I know you're a good and talented man, but yes you've spread confusion on this thread. I also think there's a bit of that language barrier because I also tried to be funny about it.

Natcho, the more people tell you to be responsible and pick your words wisely you do it the other way. Andail may be teaching you a very good lesson as he himself is not a believer.
Also, where on earth did you think Christians 'get points'? Heaven is when you made peace with God my friend and are ready to die.

KhrisMUC, people get sick more times than we wanted isn't it? And cancer? What a terrible disease it is. You can blame it on God, or maybe stop and think that it wasn't His fault. Because you are confused as well. When a Christian tells someone something like 'It's God will' he's just reassuring and softening his pain. Psychologists do it with other words but it's the same.
There is also a theory that says that scientists went too far with medication and life expectancy exceeds what our bodies can take, our cells just get ill. When life expectancy was about 40 years old there are no known cases of cancer. No Pharaoh was ever found with cancer. Sure there were different diseases though.
All I can see is you picking on known easy debatable phrases Christians use.

Misj', thanks for stepping in. It's nice to have a clear mind around.

Tuomas, I agree.     

[Phemar]

God's plan is very simple but I will not bother to tell you about it.

I would like to hear about God's plan

KhrisMUC, people get sick more times than we wanted isn't it? And cancer? What a terrible disease it is. You can blame it on God, or maybe stop and think that it wasn't His fault. Because you are confused as well. When a Christian tells someone something like 'It's God will' he's just reassuring and softening his pain. Psychologists do it with other words but it's the same.
There is also a theory that says that scientists went too far with medication and life expectancy exceeds what our bodies can take, our cells just get ill. When life expectancy was about 40 years old there are no known cases of cancer. No Pharaoh was ever found with cancer. Sure there were different diseases though.

You can't honestly be serious with that argument...

Didn't Methusalah (sp?) live till 900 or something anyway? And all those other bible dudes...

EDIT: Oh yea guys, Nacho isn't natively english, so maybe the tone and phrasing of his posts got lost a little in translation. Give the guy a break.

[miguel]

I believe the smile on your face is fake.
Phemar, The Bible was written in a time when few people could read, and it was meant to be thought, not read as a book of fiction. People back then didn't have the argumentation or the knowledge that we have at our finger tips. So they told things through stories in a way it could be easily understood by people.
It's easy for you to mock the words of those 'dudes' but it's clearly harder for you to understand it. 

[Phemar]

I used to be a heavy christian Miguel. I was really into the church and involved with about everything I could be... Until, well, I'll just say I "saw the light". Now I'm an atheist to the core

But I'm interested to hear your point of view on what God's plan for us. The topic of religion has always fascinated me and I like engaging in discussions with christians to hear what makes them believe - To find out exactly why they are convinced there is a God.

[Tuomas]

Phemar, The Bible was written in a time when few people could read, and it was meant to be thought, not read as a book of fiction. People back then didn't have the argumentation or the knowledge that we have at our finger tips. So they told things through stories in a way it could be easily understood by people.
It's easy for you to mock the words of those 'dudes' but it's clearly harder for you to understand it. 

Well yeah, I mean, that's the part of the bible that's obviously just made up. I mean, if not obviously, then that's what it seems to the readers. It's all told by someone, who lives several years after the people in the book have lived, without personal knowledge of them. I suppose he could have heard of them, I don't care about the names, but I remember, there was quite a list of names there in the old testament, who gave birth to whom. Umm... I don't see how someone living 900 years is easily understood :/

It's a lot easier to believe in the writings of the new testament when it's written in the way, that the author actually seems to be there to witness the actions of the protagonist, not just collecting folk lore from centuries ago.