Question for believers

[Tucker Case]

Why do you think I'm afraid of religion? I simply believe that religion is a farse, that it's goal is control and wealth and power building. I cannot see, in all of history, that religion has done more good than evil and that religion has failed to accomplish anything good that couldn't have been accomplished without it. It is a vehicle for despotism, tyranny and the teacher of ignorance.

That's not fear, it's acrimony.

It's fear. You assume that the worst case scenario will always come to be because you only view the total picture and disregard the individualized benefits of faith.

Basically, you are looking at the big dark spooky forest without seeing the individual trees and how they themselves manage to thrive in that big dark spooky forest.

Sure, a tree may thrive without being in the forest, but it does not get the benefits of forest life.

Having faith is not a bad thing, in and of itself.

And I see you've bitten the cookie already...

The devil made me do it. :2razz:

 

[Graffight]

First off i believe that as a christian i should be training my child in the religion that i believe would get them to heaven. Why would i want anything else for my child right. But if my child were to choose a different religion i would hopefully have an open enough relationship with them to talk to them at length about the different religions and how i feel about them. If my child were to ultimately choose a different religion, I would approach it the same way i would for a stranger. Lead the life i am supposed to under my religion and pray for them constantly, and make sure i keep the door open for conversation and do my best to answer any questions they have about my faith.

 

[Graffight]

Why do you think I'm afraid of religion? I simply believe that religion is a farse, that it's goal is control and wealth and power building. I cannot see, in all of history, that religion has done more good than evil and that religion has failed to accomplish anything good that couldn't have been accomplished without it. It is a vehicle for despotism, tyranny and the teacher of ignorance.

That's not fear, it's acrimony.

And I see you've bitten the cookie already...

why is the good not accomplished without it then...further i think you confuse "religion" with belief in a God and following a way...ALL of the "religious" mishaps and evildoings come from a direct violation of the faith, scripture or teachings that said religion is supposed to be following...that applies to pretty much all religions.

 

[Graffight]

I don't have kids yet. I'm thinking of future children. Should have clarified that.

Me and the Mrs. have had some pretty serious debates about what we're going to do when we do have kids. I don't necessarily want them indoctrinated into any belief system, but I want them to be taught about all the various faiths.

She wants them to be Catholic and that's that.

But she always wins because she is the giver of nookie.

very interesting that you say that Tucker, I just started a dialog with my Father who is agnostic. he grew up in church and doesn't believe in forcing his belief on anyone. he allowed me and my brother to grow up in the church, because he believes that the teachings of the church are a good thing even if he doesn't believe in a God that he should have to worship. He himself grew up in church, and he says it is the reason he has the moral character that he has...i believe his approach was very impressive, he went to church with us regularly, and still holds to his beliefs........what is really crazy is that when he asked me some of those "tough questions" i think i'm the first person who could answer them for him....(i'll be posting a thread about this soon )

 

[Slippery Slope]

Yeah sorry, im more civilized and lazy to bother dragging my kids halfway across the world to kill them. I would not go through the pain of giving birth to them for nothing you know.

Doesn't matter whether you like it or not or whether you are too lazy or that you are civilized (I guess you're admitting that god is uncivilized), god told you what you should do.

 

[Slippery Slope]

It's fear. You assume that the worst case scenario will always come to be because you only view the total picture and disregard the individualized benefits of faith.

Basically, you are looking at the big dark spooky forest without seeing the individual trees and how they themselves manage to thrive in that big dark spooky forest.

Sure, a tree may thrive without being in the forest, but it does not get the benefits of forest life.

Having faith is not a bad thing, in and of itself.



The devil made me do it. :2razz:

What was sacrificed in the big dark spooky forest so that the other trees could thrive?

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

 

[Slippery Slope]

why is the good not accomplished without it then...

First off, let's just talk about xianity since we are all most familiar with it. Xianity silenced opposition. Second, a lot has been accomplished without religion but it took a long time before the religious were unable to silence them. Centuries in fact.

further i think you confuse "religion" with belief in a God and following a way...ALL of the "religious" mishaps and evildoings come from a direct violation of the faith, scripture or teachings that said religion is supposed to be following...that applies to pretty much all religions.

All you've said there is that religion has not been able to do anything it is supposed to have done/do for humanity.

 

[Slippery Slope]

very interesting that you say that Tucker, I just started a dialog with my Father who is agnostic. he grew up in church and doesn't believe in forcing his belief on anyone. he allowed me and my brother to grow up in the church, because he believes that the teachings of the church are a good thing even if he doesn't believe in a God that he should have to worship. He himself grew up in church, and he says it is the reason he has the moral character that he has...i believe his approach was very impressive, he went to church with us regularly, and still holds to his beliefs........what is really crazy is that when he asked me some of those "tough questions" i think i'm the first person who could answer them for him....(i'll be posting a thread about this soon )

So people who don't rely on religion for their morals must be immoral. Or, if youy don't have religion to teach you morals, you won't have any? Wrong. Society sets it's morals and it is this fact that is exposed by cafeteria worshipers. OUR society says you can't kill someone because they convert, but gods morals are different but because society says so, religious morals are ignored. God says you must stone disobedient children but OUR society says that's a no-no, so we ignore gods morals in favor of society's.

 

[Graffight]

First off, let's just talk about xianity since we are all most familiar with it. Xianity silenced opposition. Second, a lot has been accomplished without religion but it took a long time before the religious were unable to silence them. Centuries in fact.

unfortunately i'm not clear on Xianity and what it is...it's a word that i'm only beginning to hear recently but it seems to spark a lot of controversy. What I'm saying is this...most of the outreach programs that go into places in need are religious or government programs...i really don't see many non religious programs helping people in need. I could be wrong, and maybe i only say this because of what you've said...religion has silenced the help, but I can honestly say that I've never seen any religious anything say to someone no, you're not a part of our religion so we don't want your help. What i want to know is where are all the Athiest organizations out on the south side of Chicago helping those people make it? I assure you, you'll find that Churches and religious institutes are the ones doing the majority of that work...

All you've said there is that religion has not been able to do anything it is supposed to have done/do for humanity.

Actually I'm saying that people by and large have not done anything they are supposed to do for humanity. Don't blame religion for something you aren't doing...(not to say i know you and who you've helped)

 

[Graffight]

So people who don't rely on religion for their morals must be immoral. Or, if youy don't have religion to teach you morals, you won't have any? Wrong. Society sets it's morals and it is this fact that is exposed by cafeteria worshipers. OUR society says you can't kill someone because they convert, but gods morals are different but because society says so, religious morals are ignored. God says you must stone disobedient children but OUR society says that's a no-no, so we ignore gods morals in favor of society's.

...sigh*

I never said that without religion people cannot do good, or be moral...i believe that morals are written into our genetic code...why would a small child cry when he sees his mother being hurt by someone else...how does he know that that's not what is supposed to happen. How is it that they begin to love and need love from birth...society doens't write these things in, these are intrinsic to our genetic makeup somehow. I'm sorry but why are all societies morals all so similar no matter where you go. It's wrong to kill innocents whether you go to some place in the Congo that's largely untouched by modern culture or to somewhere in Australia. why is it wrong to take something that belongs to someone else for no reason whether you're in Japan or Italy...Can you track or prove how society created these morals? There are certain morals that are universal...or else a woman would not care if she was raped, but no matter where you go a woman does not want to be raped, and people don't think they should be raped. That was not created by society...i'm sorry but you're wrong.

As far as God's morals you'll have to do a lot more research if you want to come to me saying God's morals say it's ok to kill innocent people. especially today...and i know you can quote scripture where he does it, but just because you can quote something doesn't mean you can understand it. Nor does it mean you want to even if it's explained...

 

[Slippery Slope]

Strawman. Like the fallacy. See what he did there?

No why don't you spell it out. Let me help you a little first.

strawman
noun
1. a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man]
2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man]

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. For example, someone might deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

My post does not qualify as a Strawman argument. I am not misrepresenting their position so that I can more easily refute it.

Beyond that, Jerry did NOT post his attack as a defense of a strawman argument. He called me a training dummy for his arguments in a different thread and even explained and described it as such.

I've come to regard folks like Slippery Slope as less of a troll and more of a training dummy.

Ahh, so saying that you're not really a troll is an insult.

My World of Warcraft refrence:
Training Dummies in capital cities - WoW Insider

....is a way for me to adjust my attitude to view you and your posting style more constructively and with much less emotional investment.

After the hunter nerf I spent a lot of time in front of those training dummys working out a new shot rotation for the SV spec. I love my training dummys, they help me get ready for real threats.

Jerry then, in this thread, in response to my post to someone else throws the ad hominem by posting a picture of said WoW training dummy. To which emdash asks:

is that a training dummy?

To which Jerry replies:

Yyyyyyyyup :2wave:

Note that this response is to RightofCenter and not the mods warning.

NO STRAWMAN but a definite unsolicited attack from Jerry.

 

[RightOfCenter]

No why don't you spell it out. Let me help you a little first.

strawman
noun
1. a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man]
2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man]



My post does not qualify as a Strawman argument. I am not misrepresenting their position so that I can more easily refute it.

Beyond that, Jerry did NOT post his attack as a defense of a strawman argument. He called me a training dummy for his arguments in a different thread and even explained and described it as such.





Jerry then, in this thread, in response to my post to someone else throws the ad hominem by posting a picture of said WoW training dummy. To which emdash asks:



To which Jerry replies:



Note that this response is to RightofCenter and not the mods warning.

NO STRAWMAN but a definite unsolicited attack from Jerry.

tl;dr

Too be fair he did mean it as a strawman. I didn't read your argument so I have no idea if it was or not.

 

[Slippery Slope]

unfortunately i'm not clear on Xianity and what it is...it's a word that i'm only beginning to hear recently but it seems to spark a lot of controversy. What I'm saying is this...most of the outreach programs that go into places in need are religious or government programs...i really don't see many non religious programs helping people in need. I could be wrong, and maybe i only say this because of what you've said...religion has silenced the help, but I can honestly say that I've never seen any religious anything say to someone no, you're not a part of our religion so we don't want your help. What i want to know is where are all the Athiest organizations out on the south side of Chicago helping those people make it? I assure you, you'll find that Churches and religious institutes are the ones doing the majority of that work...

Xianity/religion has not stopped war has not stopped poverty, has not brought humanity closer to being Christ-like. Churches take in and spend on it's self more money than it spends on poverty, social research, basically improving the human condition. Which says that the only thing religion is really trying to do is recruit more members to add more money to the coffers. Xianity seems much more interested in getting people to worship god than to help people in the real world. Televangelists claim they need more moeny to help the poor and that spending more on bigger TV sets and buying into more markets (to get more money) will generate more money for the poor... It's a circular argument, the more they take in the more they spend to get more and only a small percentage actually goes to helping the poor.

But you missed the point which is not that religion does NO good but that it's good does not outweigh it's harm and that this good could be accomplished without religion.

Actually I'm saying that people by and large have not done anything they are supposed to do for humanity. Don't blame religion for something you aren't doing...(not to say i know you and who you've helped)

Sure that's what you're saying, in order to ignore that these people claim to be religious and their claim is that religion gives us morals and does this or that when it doesn't.

 

[Slippery Slope]

I forgot to add some secular charities for you. Atheists don't generally consider charity as atheist or religious so here are some secular:

Parnters in Health
Partners In Health (PIH), Health Care for the Poor

Second Harvest Food Bank
http://www.foodbankcentralflorida.org/

Hands On Network
Be the Change. | HandsOn Network

Here is an example of a non-Denominational group, where people of different faiths and secular groups can work together:
Habitat for Humanitiy
Habitat for Humanity Int'l

Plus many organizations like Relay for life, hearts with hands... that raise money for medical research as well as various other "charity" programs like scholarships etc.

 

[Graffight]

Xianity/religion has not stopped war has not stopped poverty, has not brought humanity closer to being Christ-like. Churches take in and spend on it's self more money than it spends on poverty, social research, basically improving the human condition. Which says that the only thing religion is really trying to do is recruit more members to add more money to the coffers. Xianity seems much more interested in getting people to worship god than to help people in the real world. Televangelists claim they need more moeny to help the poor and that spending more on bigger TV sets and buying into more markets (to get more money) will generate more money for the poor... It's a circular argument, the more they take in the more they spend to get more and only a small percentage actually goes to helping the poor.

But you missed the point which is not that religion does NO good but that it's good does not outweigh it's harm and that this good could be accomplished without religion.

Sure that's what you're saying, in order to ignore that these people claim to be religious and their claim is that religion gives us morals and does this or that when it doesn't.

Religion like Money is A-moral meaning it is in and of itself without morals. Religion can be used to help or be used to hurt...it can be used to worship Allah or Buddah religion doesn't care, it's still religion. Now what people do with their religion, now that's the real issue. Christianity is a way of life and not so much a religion, people are supposed to give to help people, or to help those who are helping people...nowhere in the bible does it say it's right to get rich off of religion. Just because so many bad people get it wrong doesn't make the religion itself wrong, just like because there are so many bad people doesn't make people bad...being bad or good is a choice and unfortunately many people choose to do the wrong thing with religion...and it gives the religion they follow a bad name. Unfortunately like money it's not the religion that is doing anything wrong...it's what the people do with it.

 

[Slippery Slope]

...sigh*

I never said that without religion people cannot do good, or be moral...i believe that morals are written into our genetic code...why would a small child cry when he sees his mother being hurt by someone else...how does he know that that's not what is supposed to happen.

That's garbage, who told you that? The child most probably cries because in a fight there is usually high emotion, yelling, and other loud noises that upset a child. An older child knows what anger and harm is.

How is it that they begin to love and need love from birth...society doens't write these things in, these are intrinsic to our genetic makeup somehow.

That has nothing to do with religion. Do baby birds love their parents? Who knows but they seem to NEED them.

I'm sorry but why are all societies morals all so similar no matter where you go. It's wrong to kill innocents whether you go to some place in the Congo that's largely untouched by modern culture or to somewhere in Australia. why is it wrong to take something that belongs to someone else for no reason whether you're in Japan or Italy...Can you track or prove how society created these morals?

I'm no anthropologist but from what I understand, these things are "universal" to societies because without them you could not have a stable society. It has nothing to do with religion. If you are allowed to kill your neighbor then you will also be afraid your neighbor will kill you, people will kill each other off and eventually sequester themselves from others for personal and family safety. Ergo, no society. Same with theft... et al. These are rules necessary for society to exist regardless of where the society exists.

There are certain morals that are universal...or else a woman would not care if she was raped, but no matter where you go a woman does not want to be raped, and people don't think they should be raped. That was not created by society...i'm sorry but you're wrong.

The woman doesn't want to be raped, her mate doesn't want her to be raped, the woman down teh street doesn't want to be raped so they get together and say, I won't rape you and you don't rape me, ok? BANG they have created a societal rule. Rape will not be tolerated on our street...

As far as God's morals you'll have to do a lot more research if you want to come to me saying God's morals say it's ok to kill innocent people. especially today...and i know you can quote scripture where he does it, but just because you can quote something doesn't mean you can understand it. Nor does it mean you want to even if it's explained...

So, you say I'd have to do more research, then admit I could find scripture (quite a bit actually) that shows this but that I'm probably just interpreting it wrong. :doh
Is there some other way to interpret:

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

Those are just 2 of MANY examples I can provide.

 

[Slippery Slope]

tl;dr

Too be fair he did mean it as a strawman. I didn't read your argument so I have no idea if it was or not.

You mean, he DIDN'T mean it as a strawman. And thank you for clarifying that. :shock:

 

[Slippery Slope]

Religion like Money is A-moral meaning it is in and of itself without morals. Religion can be used to help or be used to hurt...it can be used to worship Allah or Buddah religion doesn't care, it's still religion. Now what people do with their religion, now that's the real issue. Christianity is a way of life and not so much a religion, people are supposed to give to help people, or to help those who are helping people...nowhere in the bible does it say it's right to get rich off of religion. Just because so many bad people get it wrong doesn't make the religion itself wrong, just like because there are so many bad people doesn't make people bad...being bad or good is a choice and unfortunately many people choose to do the wrong thing with religion...and it gives the religion they follow a bad name. Unfortunately like money it's not the religion that is doing anything wrong...it's what the people do with it.

Fine, if your child hits another child with a hammer you take away the hammer and you at least admonish the child. You DON'T just say, it's not the hammers fault, and do nothing.

 

[RightOfCenter]

You mean, he DIDN'T mean it as a strawman. And thank you for clarifying that. :shock:

No, I meant what I typed. Stop being a douche bag.

 

[moe]

Those are just 2 of MANY examples I can provide.

There is much dispute as to the actual age of these boys because the original word used can mean in a range up to their 20's. Obviously these were not members of Judaism so they were followers of Baal. Needs to be remembered people were killed in those days for belonging to the wrong religion and if you read the rest of Kings you will see that there was open hostility and blood shed between Judaism and Baalism. Elisha would have been quite a notch on their belts considering that he was the THEE prophet of the Jews and Yaweh.

If you were walking in East La and 42 young gang members all of a sudden chose to take notice of you you might be find yourself wishing for a bear or two yourself.

As to the Jeremiah verse it again needs to be remembered that Israel existed in an area of expansionist empires known for their brutality. Israel was not an expansionist empire but lived in the covenant lands that God had designated for her. God swore to be her protector as long as she upheld the Mosaic covenant.

In fact even in the Christian NT Jesus mourns over Jerusalem claiming that that if they would have remained faithful he would have never let them come to any harm.
Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


This verse although milder than most OT verses still carries the same meaning as even the most ferocious of the OT verses. He would have protected them in and peace and war but because he was rejected he would them let fall.

Moe

 

[Slippery Slope]

No, I meant what I typed. Stop being a douche bag.

I thought you'd made a typo since you said you didn't read it. So how can you say his picture was a response to a strawman if you admit you didn't read what I wrote?

 

[Slippery Slope]

There is much dispute as to the actual age of these boys because the original word used can mean in a range up to their 20's. Obviously these were not members of Judaism so they were followers of Baal. Needs to be remembered people were killed in those days for belonging to the wrong religion and if you read the rest of Kings you will see that there was open hostility and blood shed between Judaism and Baalism. Elisha would have been quite a notch on their belts considering that he was the THEE prophet of the Jews and Yaweh.

If you were walking in East La and 42 young gang members all of a sudden chose to take notice of you you might be find yourself wishing for a bear or two yourself.

As to the Jeremiah verse it again needs to be remembered that Israel existed in an area of expansionist empires known for their brutality. Israel was not an expansionist empire but lived in the covenant lands that God had designated for her. God swore to be her protector as long as she upheld the Mosaic covenant.

In fact even in the Christian NT Jesus mourns over Jerusalem claiming that that if they would have remained faithful he would have never let them come to any harm.
Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


This verse although milder than most OT verses still carries the same meaning as even the most ferocious of the OT verses. He would have protected them in and peace and war but because he was rejected he would them let fall.

Moe

I'm glad you can sorta guess at what was meant in order to excuse the killing of innocent people either directly or indirectly by your god.

Let me use the same garbage. There is much dispute whether or not the bible is actually a tool of the devil to make xians do his bidding instead of gods. Considering that the bible is chalk full of contradictions, misinterpretations and wickedness it stands to reason it may be true. :2wave: Guess I must be right since there is some dispute...

 

[RightOfCenter]

I thought you'd made a typo since you said you didn't read it. So how can you say his picture was a response to a strawman if you admit you didn't read what I wrote?

I'm saying that's what he meant it as. I have no idea if it is a correct assessment or not. And I really don't care.

 

[American]

If you had a child who didnt follow your religion would you rather they where an atheist or took on another religion?

more widely do you think its better for a person in general to have a belief in some other religion or not.

You should read Matthew 22, and try to understand Verse 14.

 

[Graffight]

I'm glad you can sorta guess at what was meant in order to excuse the killing of innocent people either directly or indirectly by your god.

Let me use the same garbage. There is much dispute whether or not the bible is actually a tool of the devil to make xians do his bidding instead of gods. Considering that the bible is chalk full of contradictions, misinterpretations and wickedness it stands to reason it may be true. :2wave: Guess I must be right since there is some dispute...

dispute by who...please site prominent theologians...