Janus1 wrote:
… actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, …but for the sake of power
the terrorists like al qaeda are conducting a jihad in their eyes. they are fighting a holy war…
Did you notice that i might have cut my quote that way, that the notion of terrorists attacks is kept out?
And please explain: how is this “holy war” not about power? How is it not a war against the power of the USA esp. and the west in general??
@cystic:
Men’s evil and tendency to violence is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and blah blah blah. Religion may be the battle-cry, but so is “king and country”, patriotism, money/diamonds, power, hatred, revenge, righteousness (the allies in WW II committed war, violence, bloodshed and terror) and violence itself.
The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict.
I fear the fanatics of “economic laws are natural laws” much more, with “profit”, “efficiency”, “profit” and “shareholder value” as battle cries. There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.
And, why do you accept the “group” notion, action and responsibility here, in contrast to the “guilty of being white?” thread? There all is a question of individuals. here it isn’t. Please explain how you can judge “guilt by religion” for groups and “guilt by society” by indivuals only?
@CC:
I would suggest that people’s reasonability and lack thereof, brings problems and conflict. …
- they are unreasonable, quick to violence, or have some other character flaw
- their religion commands it. Jews and Christians, i am quite certain, have no commands to commit violence on other people (the opposite, in fact). The same, i believe, is true of Hindus and Buddists
- a religious figure takes advantage of people’s ignorance, devotion and/or ability/willingness to commit violence.
Don’t forget that Islam also preaches peacefulness, IMO as much as Judaism. Buddhists surely are more peaceful, as they don’t have “eye for an eye” (like Jews) nor “spread the word” like Christianity or Islam.
For the first, you forgot one thing that is the only thing which i could accept against religions:
If you start from some assumptions (no matter wether they are "right or “wrong”), and firmly believe in them, so firmly that you cannot doubt them,
then you may the totally reasonable (in your frame then), and still commit acts that others (who don’t believe those assumptions) would see as violent, criminal, unreasonable.
“An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.
“An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.
How much is an eye worth?
not about power? no war is not about power, look at what CC said that I was responding to, for the sake of power, the sake of power being to get power, their war may be against power in your opinion, but it is not for the sake of power.
No one is saying guilt. Or at least, im not. I in fact said that Im sure the overwhelming majority of all these religions (except for some of those ones that are not widely accepted religions, because some of them have some pretty bizarre practices)
What Im saying is, I think the world would be better without religion, and Im using the acts of individuals as examples.
I fear the fanatics of “economic laws are natural laws” much more, with “profit”, “efficiency”, “profit” and “shareholder value” as battle cries. There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.
I dont totally disagree with that, but it has no relevance to this discussion. I do not claim that religion “scares me the most” or is anywhere near the worst problem
…but it is not for the sake of power.
Sorry for the using the wrong expression. I did mean what came up in the second posting, and we seem not be that far away of each other there.
…What Im saying is, I think the world would be better without religion, and Im using the acts of individuals as examples.
There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.
I dont totally disagree with that, but it has no relevance to this discussion. I do not claim that religion “scares me the most” or is anywhere near the worst problem
Well, if you want to abolish the minor threat, why do you leave the bigger threats unharmed? This is relevant.
Its called staying on topic. As the topic of this thread is God, and religion, I am mentioning this on this thread. I am not mentioning other problems, though they may be more serious, because that would be off topic. If you want to discuss them, make another thread, and I will gladly discuss them there.
@Grigoriy:
“An eye for an eye” in Jewish law means one must pay the equivalent sum of the eye to the person who one maimed. It is not physical payment but monetary compensation.
How much is an eye worth?
We do not know anymore. In ancient times they had ways of measuring how much people and parts of people were worth as slavery existed (though for Jews it was in the form of servitude to pay reparations for damages).
Its called staying on topic. As the topic of this thread is God, and religion, I am mentioning this on this thread. I am not mentioning other problems, though they may be more serious, because that would be off topic. If you want to discuss them, make another thread, and I will gladly discuss them there.
grins ….
well, you are about the first here who really pays attention to stay on topic then :)
well (puffs up chest) it is my thread, i feel a certain, <grasps for=“” something=“”>thing for it.</grasps>
Im currently reading a very interesting book, titled “God?”. It is a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Both provide some very good points, and argue them very well. Naturally, I think the atheist debater does a better job, but the christian debater does very well also. Personally, I found the Christian’s style to be much like Falk’s, though you may interpret for yourself if you choose to read it. When I finish, Im going to present some of the arguments on here for those of you who do not read it, and hopefully, we can get another debate going. (I will provide both sides, so as to be fair)
I believe that there is a God,and that He created everything that is. And for you Janus, the Big Bang didn’t create God, God created the Big Bang.
good man! the ranks our growing on the query
Weird…I was just looking back over some of this, and Janus actually contradicted himself! I guess I was wrong-he’s not that repetitive. :P
Also, this thread is getting rather confusing. Hopefully we can get
Im currently reading a very interesting book, titled “God?”. It is a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. Both provide some very good points, and argue them very well. Naturally, I think the atheist debater does a better job, but the christian debater does very well also. Personally, I found the Christian’s style to be much like Falk’s, though you may interpret for yourself if you choose to read it. When I finish, Im going to present some of the arguments on here for those of you who do not read it, and hopefully, we can get another debate going. (I will provide both sides, so as to be fair)
this going soon and make it even more so.
If even the slightest imperfections in the structure of the Atom existed, life would not exist. If Hydrogen didn’t bond so well with Oxygen to produce water, life would not exist. If the right combinations of atoms and molecules didn’t form together to create amino acids, life would not exist. Its not inconcievable to think that we’re not one huge accident.
However, anyone who believes going to Church every Sunday, praying before going to bed, saying Grace, confessing, et al, has anything to do with a higher power, well they need to study their history.
Mr. Beans, you are wrong.
GI, thats entirely possible. if i might ask, where? what did i say?
Yanny, while some of what you said is applicable, im not prepared to accept that argument from you, you are a layman (sp?). however, that is part of the christian argument in the book (“God?”), so i will comment on it when i finish
theres a difference between prayer and religion. you can believe in a god, and pray to a god, but not practice a religion. as i was saying, private belief in god is fine, many people privately believe in worse things. this can include prayer. you can still pray, even if religion is abolished.
This. First you say that there is no god, but then you say it’s fine to believe in god. I’m thinking that maybe your problem isn’t with god of any brand, it’s with religion. (probably you’ve said that and I missed it).
Mr. Beans, you are wrong.
GI, thats entirely possible. if i might ask, where? what did i say?
Yanny, while some of what you said is applicable, im not prepared to accept that argument from you, you are a layman (sp?). however, that is part of the christian argument in the book (“God?”), so i will comment on it when i finish
no Janus you are wrong :P …
yes you are repetitive…
What does it matter if he is a layman! you don’t even believe in God what right :roll: do you think you have to say that? Why would you contradict yourself? A layman in my view of Christianity doesn’t mean anything… there is no seperiority in the church because even pastors are subject to someone…
GG
GI, the mistake was mine, again, my difficulty in transferring my thoughts to words. to sum up my feelings:
in my posts, i may have contradicted myself in various places, so that is my stance.
GG:I never said i was not repetitive (did i?) because i certainly am. when i am (i think) the only one in this forum arguing my position, and everyone else uses similar arguments, its going to happen (similar in that many points are repeated by different posters, i try to address them each time)
BUT
It absolutely matters that he is a layman. he isnt arguing, in that post, a matter of faith or religion, but of science. read his post, he talks about variances in atoms, and amino acids. that is a discussion of science. i am not prepared to accept his opinion on that, unless i hear a source, because that is an empirical (well, mostly empirical) issue.
if you are going to question my right to argue religion because i am an atheist, than you dont seem to understand the topic of this thread.
ok, im pissed now. i finished typing my first post on “God?”, and it was REALLY long. apparently i took to long to finish typing, because when i submit it, it said Invalid Session, and erased everything i had typed. so i wont be retyping it for a little while while i calm down.
