RELIGION - what? LET'S UNITE AGAINST SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES!

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby gtaca2005 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:23 pm

I call it linguistic trickery.

I do it all the time. :)
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
SPDude666
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:42 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby SPDude666 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:41 am

I believe in God. All the way. God gave you the free will to believe in him or not, so, whatever, but I don't understand why you wouldn't. How else could the universe have been created. And if you say "Big bang" the big bang had to come from somewhere, didn't it?
Taking the banner of the holy Marsh! Death to the vile lard!
M00ndragon69
Posts: 9593
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:32 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby M00ndragon69 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:25 am

The use of big words doesn't make one more intelligent. What makes one more intelligent is to think of their own arguements, and to use words that clearly communicate those arguements.

And sometimes, the use of big words, when the people you are talking to are not familiar with those words and you don't explain the meanings of those words actually makes you look like a pompous ass to whoever you are talking to.Instead of them being impressed about how intelligent you are, it is more like they feel like you are talking down to them.
Image
Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Wii fit man » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:27 am

Kelly MacCornmac wrote:
Wii fit man wrote:I believe that the philosphy of gigantic words is nessacary for proper syntax of a good argument sentence and makes your point look better, or should I say fantastic. Furthermore- SuperCagilisticsuperfalladoucious!

I disagree on this one. Just because you have a huge vocab, doesn't make your argument better. If anything, it makes it worse because people wouldn't know what you were talking about. If you stick with words that people know about, then they will know your argument. The only upside of having long ass words is that it prevents people who don't know the definition from arguing.

Uh.. i was joking :P

And if you say "Big bang" the big bang had to come from somewhere, didn't it?
Yea, the buildup of explosive chemicals :P

But seriously, I can't answer everything. We'll probably figure it out evantually, or maybe not. I don't know.
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
BlueEyes4u2nv
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby BlueEyes4u2nv » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:35 am

I don't believe in "God" and the exact story of Jesus. I just believe in a higher power. Something out there just has control of us. Not necessarily God and Jesus.

God,

Been in the universe forever

But suddenly made humans and animals

And hates gays

Makes perfect sense.

If I see it, I'll believe it, but for now. All hail the mythical creature who invented this sh*tty world.
pussycat
Kelly MacCornmac
Posts: 6142
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:05 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Kelly MacCornmac » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:43 am

SPDude666 wrote:I believe in God. All the way. God gave you the free will to believe in him or not, so, whatever, but I don't understand why you wouldn't. How else could the universe have been created. And if you say "Big bang" the big bang had to come from somewhere, didn't it?

In all honesty, I don't know where or how the big bang came about. And if god made the universe, he must have a reason for it. And that would make him imperfect. If that reason was for humans, then why make an imperfect universe? Or on a smaller scale, an imperfect world? You say that god has given you free will, but how would you know this? It's possible that he's tricking you into thinking that you have free will. You ask how else the universe can be created, well, we don't know yet. It's entirely possible that we will never know. But I do not think that would be the time to point at god and say that he has done it.
Causing havoc on the BBS one post at a time

Officially supports the de-perma of GTA, Mike, Cartman, and possibly others


SPU! Join it!
BlueEyes4u2nv
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby BlueEyes4u2nv » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:55 am

Here is an interesting fact and yall pay attention.

God followers, christians, catholics etc. Go by God's rules? Right?

Well if being gay and being inbred, Incests etc is something bad, WTF ARE WE?

If God exists aswell as Adam And Eve, Are we not inbred?
pussycat
gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby gtaca2005 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:00 am

You all need to take a look at this.

As I've said before, "under God" in the pledge was added in the 50's, and here's the proof to the people that don't want to believe the pages I've linked before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6C5Jto ... annel_page

It as a cartoon. Porky the Pig in the 30's, before it was added. No God is mentioned.
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
BlueEyes4u2nv
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:32 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby BlueEyes4u2nv » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:11 am

I was looking forward to an answer of one of my posts. And I saw that. To my eyes, That made no sense. 8)
pussycat
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18832
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby Big-Will » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:30 am

gtaca2005 wrote:You all need to take a look at this.

As I've said before, "under God" in the pledge was added in the 50's, and here's the proof to the people that don't want to believe the pages I've linked before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6C5Jto ... annel_page

It as a cartoon. Porky the Pig in the 30's, before it was added. No God is mentioned.

There was a time when America wasn't mentioned either.
There was a time when the United States wasn't mentioned either.

The original Pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.


The only real reason "under God" was inserted in the Pledge was to contrast the U.S. to godless Communist U.S.S.R. There's no rush to remove it just because the U.S.S.R. is gone.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
gtaca2005
Posts: 3915
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:36 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby gtaca2005 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:00 am

Big-Will wrote:
gtaca2005 wrote:You all need to take a look at this.

As I've said before, "under God" in the pledge was added in the 50's, and here's the proof to the people that don't want to believe the pages I've linked before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6C5Jto ... annel_page

It as a cartoon. Porky the Pig in the 30's, before it was added. No God is mentioned.

There was a time when America wasn't mentioned either.
There was a time when the United States wasn't mentioned either.

The original Pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.


The only real reason "under God" was inserted in the Pledge was to contrast the U.S. to godless Communist U.S.S.R. There's no rush to remove it just because the U.S.S.R. is gone.

I would also like to point out that the original pledge was actually written by a Baptist minister. A Socialist at that. I only pointed this out to show people that this country wasn't founded on any religion, and that the pledge is no "proof" for our "Christian beginnings".

But people need to wake up and realize, "Godless Communism" wasn't the enemy. Communism, although I do not think it could ever work, isn't at it's basic philosophy evil.

(And any "bad" thing done under the rule of the Communists doesn't represent all "Communists" or "Godless" people. Remember, Communism in it's basic idea is not bad, and actually quite good. It just can't work with human nature.)
"It's not Jesus.... It's a portal monster." - SuperiourSavior
JohnHorn
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby JohnHorn » Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:56 pm

I woul funamdentlaly state it’s false futher more what is called communism is not communism at all by any description rather it was undemocratic regimes,[weather you wish to call cuba democratic or not is rather irrelevant], and also reffered specifically to a stateless society under marxism it also meant that all property would be instead public as in community[Marxist-Chomsky…-Anarchist-Communism] not public as in state,[Lenin-Trotsky-Fidel-Hugo-Lula…-State-Socialism]
and not forgettng the [Stalin-Mao-State-fascist-maostalinism].
not to mention it’s far easier to be really pedantic about capitalism their isn't one capitalism……, but their definetly isn't one socialism either
their is stalinism/maoism[former:china], their is socailism[venusuelia], democratic socialism[elsavador],
well those are economically different their is
basically going from mom&pop capitalism, neoliberlaism, free-market capitalism, leise fer capitalism, “anarcho capitalism”.

their is plenty on both side’s I haven't really listed all what would be calle dcorrectly, under the original interpertation communism is,
libraterian socialist/Anarcho communism, and so froth.

then their are things that defy such a triad catagorization even,
let alone collectivist versus individualist dichotomy.

Let’s just search up how the inuit people lived, okay
basically living for survival everyone has to take part, all that stuff is closer to the communism catagory their then the socialist one in-fact it has nothing to do with the socialist catagory, nilch where does the state act for such people? eh not often, and the state is not part of their culture is the right thing to say.
the state ironically however is part of our cultures.


Oh yeah I also forgot to mention different levels of collectivization the size of states and such political factors, I mean if you mean continental politics that is actually a factor in how to run things and how the system works…… and sh*t,
oh yeah and the extent of collecitivsation the differences between private and intelectual property
corporate and individual private property
and community versus state public property,
the reason for this od and imprecise communication is……………… how we use English…… :? :cry: .




SPDude666 wrote:I believe in God. All the way. God gave you the free will to believe in him or not, so, whatever, but I don't understand why you wouldn't. How else could the universe have been created. And if you say "Big bang" the big bang had to come from somewhere, didn't it?

but where did said god come from and if god had a mother and a farther where did his family come from?



[What I meant is with the first part that it’s false that this bad communism was even communism it was bad socialism……… to sound a bit pedantic it was Stalinism and extentions such as maoism.]

I also forgot to mention that these systems aren't inherently godless but are godless by choice.
superiorsavior
Posts: 4261
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby superiorsavior » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:14 pm

I would agree with moon and tripple in contending, in regard to Wii fit man's assertion that a wide vocabulary is necessary for efficient debate, that it is the specificity of the words used and clarity concerning their definition that are essential. However, I don't give a sh*t about weather big words make one look like a pompus ass or not; if you have to refer to an idea numerous times in your argument it's best to give it a name, and explain what that is, rather than keep pumping out the description each time. Plus, it can be a good reminder that people have already debated the issue for centuries and you could learn a lot by looking at what they said.

The first thing I'll say to SPDude666 is to look at the specificity of his god; even if the big bang had a personal cause, how does he know that cause is the god presented in his holy books? Why not those of another sect or religion or a god who does not desire to be worshiped and so is not present in any tradition?

A perfect (omnipotent, etc) person (with desires) at the heart of a religious tradition (performed all the historic acts the tradition says it did), that is to say God, is as you can see a rather complex explanation containing a huge quantity of information. All else equal, an explanation containing less information is more likely to be true than one containing more, as it assumes more; for the explanation to be true by chance (i.e. all else equal) the probability of each indipendant piece of data being true (God incarnating, being a trinity, being omnipotent, being benevolent, wrestling Jacob, making a deal with Jeptha, etc) would be multiplied together to get a much smaller overall probability, who's size correlates inversely with that of the explanation. Deism would be more likely than any traditional religion, all else being equal, and an impersonal or imperfect first cause would be more probable still.

But all else is not equal. Traditions are filled with contradictions both internally and with science and morality. All contained withing them must be communicated miraculously (breaches a natural law) to justifably believe they come from a divine source and so natural explanations for the expieriences would likely be more probable, as the natural laws are supported by innumerable repeatable observations. The wide verity of contradictory beliefs with similar levels of evidence seem to cancel each other out.

The universe does not appear to have a purpose, at least none we would care about; life, the acceptance of certain beliefs, the development of certain character traits and behaviours, freedom or the minimization of suffering do not appear to be on the agenda. While I don't understand physics i know they have some impersonal ultimate explanations which are backed up by coherence with observed reality, something to do with expansion from an imperfect vacuum, and so are more likely. An impersonal philosophical explanation such as modal realism or mathematical universalism is much more probable than God as the explanation for everything.

As there are no details of how god caused the big bang to occur it is a very incomplete explanation unlike the detailed ones of physics; and the question of why god is eternal in a way the universe or a naturalistic cause such as the big bang (which made time remember) could not be escapes me.

On the issue of free will. Most of our decisions are subconscious in nature and so are not willed. We do not know how the brain works and as such it is absurd to say we can control it. It is impossible to choose our initial state of personality as that would involve making a choice before we existed and besides, there is no mechanism for someone to choose their genetics, upbringing or social position; this initial state is altered and developed by subsequent experiences, which will be external in origin. As the interaction between personality (ultimately unchosen) and external expierience leads to action, action is ultimately unchosen. Action partially determines what our next expieriences will be but is determined by our personality which is ultimately unchosen. Randomness does not equal freedom; a quantum particle is random but not free. The randomness of quantum events occurs at a scale several thousand times smaller than that which brain processes occur on from what I hear, and so the brain is utterly determined though we cannot guess in what way as our intellect is too limited.

God comes down to St Paul, Abraham, Mosses, Mary, and everyone Jesus ever spoke to, in scripture, and if he could talk to them without changing their free will he can certainly appear to all of us without precluding our freedom. 2+2=4, and all squares have 4 sides, but you are free to question even these things; people question quantum theory and evolution all the time despite them being based on almost insurmountable evidence, so the idea that God appearing to us would destroy our free will is absurd. We could still question him, even if the evidence all pointed to God. As God does not appear to people when appearing to them and as more people would be saved if he did appear to them, and as appearing does not impinge on their free will, then he does not care about their salvation.

Heaven is eternal and so if there is any chance of something happening in heaven, it will happen. If there is any chance of someone sinning they will; the fall of satan and a third of the angels and the fall of man show that people can be damned for sin in paradise. It is never impossible for a human to sin unless we are somehow changed. If that change can occur in heaven without precluding our free will then why was it not present on earth, as such a change would both prevent evil and suffering, and lead to more people accepting salvation. If such a change cannot be made in heaven without precluding free will, then either the change still happens and the question of why it didnt happen on earth is still just as open and unjust, or it does not happen in which case everyone will fall anyway in the end.

"under God" in the pledge was added in the 50's

Everyone knows it was added to differentiate god-fearing America from the evil atheistic hordes of the USSR, a precursor to politicians everywhere abusing religion to push their points, which brings me onto the question I came here to post; what do you believe the social and economic politics of the character presented in the Bible named jesus were, disregarding for the moment weather or not the portrayal is an accurate, un-embelished depiction of a real man-god?

A few months back i read a pamphlet by a liberation theologian, that is to say socialist christian. To summarize, it argued that there is nothing anti-christian about socialism as; it pre-dates the atheistic materialism of Marx: it is possible to care deeply about humanity, without loving them more than god: personal transformation nesicary for salvation requires social transformation to save as many as possible: the soul is in the body and so concern for people's bodily welfare is spiritual unlike 'escapist' theology. In Acts 4:32-35 and 2:44-45, Luke describes a society who's material distribution was very in line with "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need," or "sell their property" and "make a general distribution as the need required" in Luke's words. Luke appears to hold that all christians should idealy live as 1st century christians. Whilst people do not live as the 1st century christians did, people do not live as jesus commanded in the sermon on the mount either; just because people do not live as jesus instructed, does not mean they should not try. That something materially failed once does not mean it is destined to fail; the original community failed because it was in a wider capitalist world, but as christians now number the majority of people in the west, if they got behind the cause they could enable it to succeed. Acts 5:4 may appear to show this social system is optional but so is adherence to Christianity and salvation. Jesus himself argues the same point in Luke 14:33.

Mark 4:11, Luke 8:10, Mathew 13:38 and Mathew 13:11 speak of an earthly state of affairs rather than an ethereal heaven. The use of the name of god to highlight these sections shows their importance. The lord's prayer holds that we have a normative duty to make the world as it is in heaven, and an unequal system with private property in heaven is absurd. "They shall inherit the earth" in Mathew 5:5 suggest that the kingdom is on earth.

Mark 10:25, Luke 6:20, Luke 6:24, Mathew 6:24, Luke 16:13 and Luke 16:19-31 all refer to the abolition of private property. In John 12:6, John 13:29 and Luke 8:1-2 it is shown that jesus lived this teaching, for those who adhere to what would jesus do.

Jesus acted as a rebel against the authority figures and the rich. The parable of the rich man refers to all those with relative wealth not particuarly sinful rich men who have already had their happiness. This is a continuation of an old testament theme not a breach with tradition. Amos 5:7-11, Micah 2:1-2, Issiah 5:8, Jeramiah 5:27-28 and Psalms 62:10, all condemn the relatively rich. The majority of instances of the word wealthy or rich being used in the prophets are derogatory. Jeremiah 5:26-31, Ezekiel 22:6-13, Amos 3:10, Amos 5:7-12, all attack the notion of an upper class. The word rich man has been translated to 'athiest' on several occasions including in the psalter. Micah 3:3, Proverbs 30:14, Psalm 14:4, Psalm 35:10, Psalm 82:4, Psalm 52:5, Psalm 10:14-15 and Psalm 37:7 all disaprove of differential wealth.

The most important point this book brought to my eyes was not that Jesus may have been a socialist, but that the Bible really can be used to prove any point of view. I already knew this from the wesbro baptist church and the LGBT churches but to see such a huge division between liberation theology and the capitalism of traditional protestantism, has really made explicit the ability of millions to interpret the book in one way and millions in another. Maybe people just project their own social and econonic views onto jesus. But back to my original question, which view of jesus social and economic politics do you think is most probable?
Superior2you
Check my Fanarts!

Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.
SPDude666
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:42 am

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby SPDude666 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:14 pm

how does he know that cause is the god presented in his holy books?
It could be, but I believe in the Christian ideoligies, and that's what I THINK happened. Hey, who knows? Maybe the mormons or the islam or even the atheists are right? The thing is, I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong.

but where did said god come from and if god had a mother and a farther where did his family come from?
That's a question I learn when I meet him after death.

Here is an interesting fact and yall pay attention.

God followers, christians, catholics etc. Go by God's rules? Right?

Well if being gay and being inbred, Incests etc is something bad, WTF ARE WE?

If God exists aswell as Adam And Eve, Are we not inbred?

I've learned through life that following the bible word for word will get you nowhere. I don't think stoning the gays, and other things are gonna be good for you.

If that reason was for humans, then why make an imperfect universe?
As you said yourself, god is not perfect.

You say that god has given you free will, but how would you know this?
Think about it.

You just thought.

There you go. :lol:
Taking the banner of the holy Marsh! Death to the vile lard!
superiorsavior
Posts: 4261
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: RELIGION - Puttin' faith aside, gettin' down to morals

Postby superiorsavior » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:53 pm

Maybe the mormons or the islam or even the atheists are right?

Of course it's the mormons, didn't you watch south park :P

A better attitude to take than exclusivity and literalism, the problems being; all religions I know of make statements about history or science that are demonstrably false: there are internal contradictions in each religious tradition: there's an equal amount of evidence for almost all these contradictory belief sets and so it's best not to accept any as more valid than any other: the theistic hypothesis is less simple than deism which is less simple (likely to be true) impersonal thesis, and such theories exist often based on observations: there is no evidence of a purpose we would care about in the world: you can't jump from "belief in a personal creator" to "belief in the god of religion X," and mere Deistic belief has no impact on your afterlife beliefs or moral beliefs.

god is not perfect.

Most theists seem to accept a perfect god, a limited one is infinitely more likely so good choice; i doubt that a finite being could be the ultimate cause of all things though. One of the least logical reasons i reject a personal cause is because i don't see how anything resembling us could have created all that's out there; more logical arguments are, how could a finite being not require a cause / be the end of the casual chain and how could a personal being (necessarily complex) be infinite?

That's a question I learn when I meet him after death.

The afterlife won't nesicarilly put you in a better position than the one your in now. If it's ghosts or reincarnation how does that give you any evidence about god; religion's hijacking the afterlife (along with morality, metaphysics and meaning) is one of the reasons i not only disbelieve in it but actively dislike it.

following the bible word for word will get you nowhere

While mostly harmless, metaphorical religion can't really justify anything; you choose on the basis of what you like and dislike anyway what rules to follow, and on the basis of evidence outside the bible what parts refering to the world are literal and which metaphors. I used to make the argument that if creation was metaphorical, there was no fall and no basis for salvation, though the fall could've been metaphorical (humanity 'fell' because of the negative traits we gained by evolving) but that level of metaphor requires reading your own conclusion into the story and could justify just about any text. Plus, if creation is metaphorical, who's to say the resurrection, god, and the miracles, aren't 't as well?

You just thought.

Thinking =/= willing. The will is conscious thought, most thought is sub-conscious. FREE will is a decision that is ultimately our own, that we have ultimately chosen; but as our personality is ultimately sourced outside ourselves, and cannot have been chosen, and all the actions and personality developments we could possibly have are all based on the personality and situations we did not choose, we cannot have free will. These would apply as much to a nonphysical soul or mind as to the brain.

The point of the jesus socialist part of my last post was to point out that you can justify pretty much any moral view on the bible, which supports each fairly equally and so offers no real support; same goes for alcohol, prostitution, homosexuality, the death penalty, etc. There may be more popular views but the bible has no specific moral philosophy. It's better to build your moral point of view on the basis of those people who've dedicated their lives to thinking about the issues, such as Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill, Aristotle, etc, than on the words of a random mythology that lacks a coherent moral picture.
Superior2you
Check my Fanarts!

Death will take us so don't fight it. Become it and lean to win.

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests