Messages

@Ozzie:

Replying to your question: Because religion is still "oficial" in many sides of the world. The day that finishes, I will give a shit about what people does or does not indoors.

On the other hand, man, I do not agree with your first paragraph at all...

@Voh... But believing that facts in bible happened as it says is stupid. It' s not my fault.

What you are doing is: You can't say 2+2 is 4, if you don't accept somebody else' s opinion that 2+2=5.

Allow me to make you a question... What do you think of someone thinking that SPIDERMAN exists as depicted in Marvel Comics?

Okay... start fighting football.

That you would like football not to be imposed to people is your argument against my opinion that religion shouldn' t?

It's very weak as an argument... I think it actually reinforces mine.

But I don't present my feelings as fact. Just as I would expect people who belong to any of these organizations not to attempt to present what they believe as fact.

It's common courtesy.

Why it's courtesy not saying that bible literalism is stupid?

People would say to someone saying that the smurfs are real is stupid.

Why not saying the same to something which has the same degree of folly?

SSH: As said, football is not cultural imposition. Religion is. That is my fight.

If you want to start a fight against "how, in spite of not receiving an institutional aid, it is impossible for an actual kid of my country to abstract of the influence of football" you can do it. You have my blessing... I mean... support.

Still, football would go on being real, while God, as fas as we know, isn't...

@ Voh:

No, voh... What I am NOT being is idiot. I am not going to stop throwing punches if the guys that I have in front and is punching me doesn't stop before. They started. They are the ones that are getting taxes from me. They are the ones that told me that lenguajes were made by God because he was annoyed with us because we were making the Babel Tower. They lied to me when I was a child, when I had no rational tools to deffend myself propperly (with no permanent hurt, fortunatelly) and I consider myself in the perfect right to deffend myself.

@ Trent:

I am going to be extremelly polite,you deserve it (To be honest, I missed the parts where you recognised were not completelly civil, I will skip them, then  ). Actually, your post opens an interesting door I' ve never explored before: "Misstranslation". Okay. What I am going to do, basically, is to jump over all the possible misstranslations and go for the nowadays "average" believer opinion:
The one who things that Big bang existed, that man evolved as the evolution theory, and that bible is a bunch of morale teachings that galvanize around paraboles and allegories, and that nothing can be taken as "real".

Okay.

Then... If you don' t thing that those things happened, how can you believe in God? Where is the evidence?

I mean... Literalistics can have "illogical" beliefs (I will, from now and ultil I remember it, change "stupid" for "illogical", ok?). Literalistics believe God created earth because they see the earth. Literalistics believe that God created manking from mud because they see men. Literalistics believe that Deluge happened because they see that there are animals, nowadays, they must be the one who survived deluge!

Literalistics believe in "God", because they see things, and someone must have created that things...

I think that natural history proves things did not happened like that... But they are being consistent, at least...

But if you are not literalistic... Why believing?

If you were, you should have the evidences (Everything should have been an evidence).
If you are not a literalistic, you have nothing.

There is no evidence that God is real. No evidence that what is written in Bible is heavenly inspired, (then, what you have there is not real), and if the stories contained there are not real, maybe the concept of "God" isn' t either.

If you are not literalistic "God" is indistinguishable from anything else invented by man.

Indistinguisable from the smurfs, from Darth Vader, Superman or Godzilla.

Of course... we have the "If I see a watch, I must think that there is a watchmaker". Sorry, no. If you believe that EVERYTHING must have a MAKER, you are in an alley, because GOD would NEED a MAKER as well.

And now... My opinion about "nowadays believers" (scientific believers, or whatever you want to call them): I respect them. I don' t know from where they happened to arrive to that point, of why they do believe, I am nobody to judge them. Maybe they need to believe, I think it' s sad needing something unreal to believe in, but that' s not my problem.
But please... Don' t try to make me believe.

Well, Eric, I was being quite moderate about how skeptics would react against the game, and how could he do it to make it appealing to an skeptic audience. I must confess that I missed the line when he specifically asked not to receive ideas in that direction, that he was not going to take them into consideration. My apologies.

Read the thread again, check it by yourself.

Then, someone told me that I was being a coward, and that FC Barcelona fans are child molesters, comparing religion with football... after that I started debating seriously, because religion is not like football... Maybe it's as childish, but it is not a statal imposition which receives the taxes EVERYBODY pay.

Then the problems started .

***EDIT: Saying, projecting and lying, that I told "All believers are stupid" didn't help, either***

And yes, Voh, thanks for your reply. When "Church" finishing receiving money from taxes I will respect it. When all kinds around the world can go to school and not receiving a false point of view of creation of earth, universe and the life, I will respect it. When all the countries in the world became secular I will start respecting it.

When religion starts to respect my atheism, I will respect religion.

But prog... How can you argue to me about the morale aspects of Bible when I haven't commented any of those so far? I have given evidences of the way I think, but atm I was just talking to Bible literality.

I said nothing about what I think of the paraboles, the morality, the meaning of the figures or the exaggerations... I said that "believing it happened as is written is stupid".

So... if anybody agrees, I can MOVE and talk about Christian Religion as a Religion based in a book that has errors.

Sorry Prog, but some things in Bible are plain stupid. I wish I was that comprehensive to hear that someone REALLY BELIEVES in the deluge passage and think "Ok... he... he might be right!"

But I can' t. It' s fisically impossible. It' s impossible to build that ark, it' s impossible to bring all the animals in, it' s impossible to storage the food, it' s impossible to...

Well... Almost everything in those chapters is impossible.

Earth? 6,000 years old? Sorry, man. I hear it and I automatically think "Impossible".

I am talking of literally believing in bible. You mention literallity, and after that you mention me "moral stories". Are you sure we are talking of the same? I think we must define what are we talking about, because I honestly believe we might agree.

It's natural for people to need something to fill this certain gap in their lives. People need something in common with others, a safety net to fall on, something that will be there for them. And for most people it is religion. They're taught to needing it from a child, and the peer perssure to needing it is high.

The morality, or the need, to have such belifs once you realised that they are not real is something we will discuss in abother thread. 

Do I really need to repeat that I never said that believing in stupid?

I will add, that I feel that if you say that ones beliefs are stupid, it translates to saying that they are stupid. Believing is an act of the mind and heart (wow, that sounded super cheesy)

No. I think I am able to love/like/respect/admire someone with different ideas than me.

A set of ideas is just that. There are millions of set of ideas that create the personality.

I don' t understand Andail' s politics point of view. He is my friend.
I don' t understand M0ds' beliefs on UFOs. He is my friend.
I don' t understand SSH' s religious beliefs. I hope he is still my friend. I consider him so.
Nikolas doesn't understand my hobbies regarding to sport. He is my friend.
I don' t understand BOYD at all... I hope he is my friend. I consider him so.

Hope now is clear.

@ Nikolas: Of course... Because you said "Doing 6 hours of bike per day is moronic".  

My point is, if you can say that, and NOTHING HAPPENS, why can' t I say the same about the most stupid set of beliefs that we can find in modern society?

@ Phemar: I am open to discuss anything I said in the other thread, and examine it, word by word, if you want...

I mean... If someone comes to you and says "I DO BELIEVE that there was a gallactic civil war, and there were Jedis, and an evil senator Palpatine conspired, creating a false threat, to have a new army to kill them all and rule the Galaxy" what would you think of him? What would you think if someone comes and tells you that he believes in smurfs? Well... I am not dare enough to imagine what would you say, but... I would definitelly think "This guy is nuts".

Maybe after knowing the guy, he is cool, and those stupid beliefs he confessed to me were just an island of crazyness in an ocean of common sense, but, hey... I am sorry. My first think would be "Wow... crazy!"

Okay... Nikolas: let' s start debating:

I DO NOT force your kids to learn "Biking" at least for 3 hours per week in school. Many countries force kids to receive "Religion", no matter if you want or not. "Biking" is not a cultural imposition given before you have the rational tools for deffending from it, Religion does.
I DO NOT ask money from contributors to keep me biking. Church does.
Biking does not involve believing in supernatural theories that are agains reason. Religion does.
Saying "Biking is moronic" does not involve social discredit. Saying "Religion is moronic" does.

And I wonder why.

Edit: KrishMUC. I will never be that dare to say "literal believers are stupid" or "Saying that literal believers are stupid is not so far from truth". I just mean that those specific beliefs are.

Oliwerko: Eeer... As far as I agree with you, I must say that this is not the topic.

The topic, I think (and I must be right, since I started it) is if has arrived the time for being able to say that "Bible literalism is stupid" without of fear of suffering an over reaction bigger than I could find after saying that "Believing in smurfs is stupid" or "Believing in dragons is stupid".

I honestly thing that this time has arrived. I am very interested in that, because there are things in the Bible that seem so ridiculous for me, that, to be honest, I don' t imagine myself labelling them in another way than "stupid" (Or silly, ridiculous, unbelierable, impossible, etc...)

Note that I am not saying "Believers are stupid", "Religious people are stupid" or "Religions are stupid". I am just focusing on the principles of any religion, taken literally.

BOYD: I ask you again... Why? Why am I a big idiot, a dick, for saying that the principles of the religion, if taken literally, are stupid and not defensible from the reason? Tell me why, and I will try to reply to you.

I NEVER said that religious people are stupid.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Bible literalism is. A big relief after what I saw in the other topic.

Okay... I've been told that saying that Bible literalism is stupid is:

-Verbally punching.
-Insulting.
-Aggressive.

And

-Gives atheistics a bad name.

Now, to those who told that to me.... Why?

Well, you had what you want! This, is a slice of reality. If you do this game, you have different ways to do it.From "parody" to "Literalistic", a wide range!  And it will create controversy, that's for sure.

No matter which degree you chose. Some people will see it boring and don't give it even a tiny opportunity. That happens with everything, no matter the topic you chose.

So, do it. As far as I know, doing a "believer" game, the worst that can bring to you is indeference.

Edit: Eeeeeek... Three replies till I was writing. This was refered to Dervish.

Parody=mocking? Not in the sense I was meaning...

EDIT: One question, Space Boy... Why Star Wars can be parodied, and Religion not?

Dunno... maybe as same on topic when you called me coward for not critizising Islam, and childish for being a football club fan?

EDIT: Prog; If you are a bible literalist, yes. Probably the most stupids I' ve ever heard, sorry. Maybe I am the only one in this forums to WRITE it, but I am sure most of you will think that believing that filling a boat with a couple of animals of each kind is stupid.

I don' t know you, but I am perfectly able to keep respecting, admiring, and loving, if needed, a person with stupid beliefs. I do lots of stupids things myself. A person is not stupid for having some stupid beliefs. A person is stupid if all, or most, of their beliefs are stupid. I do not judge people. As I wouldn't say "this guy is silly" for thinking that 2+2=5, I don' t say that you are stupid for having stupid beliefs.

But if you ask me, 2+2 is not equal to 5, and believing that a man can walk over the waters is silly.

Prog: A high percentage of that 30% are "social believers". They get married in the church because society asks for it, they baptize their kids there because society asks for it, they make a christian funeral because that' s what society expects you do to.

Almost all the people I know makes religious ceremonies in those cases (aprox 90%, but the level of religious ceremonies is decreasing in front of civilian ones any way).

NONE of that people I know REALLY believes in that. Maybe it sounds weird for you, apparently in America the level of believers is higher, but I never had a friend saying "I do believe in God". There was a guy I knew in high school, yeah, and I see Jehova' s witnesses here and there from time to time, but, under my experience, and I think it' s so broad that I can use it to extrapolate data, here in Europe the amount of believers is very few.

Anyway, we can go on discussing here the numbers of "true" believers there are till the trumpets of the armaggeddon sound, we won't  reach to an agreement because there is no way to measure how deep the believe of people is... But you must agree with me that the level of believers is decreasing, no?

At least here. If in America is not, the only thing I can say is that I am sorry for America, since believers societies are worse.

Anyway, I don't want to focus the debate on figures. One person should be enough if that person is right. The problem? That person is not.

SSH:

Please can some mod split Nacho's "Religious people are stupid" thread off from the origial topic?

If they can find that sentence in any of my posts I am sure they will delete it, SSH.

The problem is that what I wrote was this:

"I find the principles of every religion stupid" Not "Religious people are stupid".

I keep it. Saying that one guy was bored and decided to make everything in 6 days is stupid. Saying that he made Adam from mud, and Eve from one of Adam' s ribs is stupid. Saying he got annoyed with his sons and decided to kill us with a deluge is stupid. Saying that engramas are a psychic wound made by one of the 13 billions of aliens (grown by the explossion of an hydrogen bomb inside of volcanoes) sent here by an evil gallactic warrior called Xheru is stupid (Scientology).

That' s why I asked if you are a literalist of not. If you are not, we can go on discussing about the suitability of creating an ethic code based in lies or partial lies.

If you are, sorry, man... your believs are supids. You can ask me to be polite, to hide my beliefs for the shake of civility of the forums, etc, etc... I might agree or not, but those beliefs would go on being stupid.

There are written rules as well as in many countries, religion is the basis for law

Sorry... I didn' t got that line. Want the reply? The short or the extended? The short is "NO". Religion is not the basis for law. Roman right is, in Western contries at least. If there are counties where religion is basis for law, then, poor of them.