Author Topic: Religion  (Read 460230 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tesla

  • Street Fighter Champion
  • *****
  • Posts: 10623
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1635 on: April 13, 2008, 11:39:59 am »
Who drinks Ale?
No way dude, you're trolling me.

Offline Kcronos

  • Boulder Dasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • The Dark Time Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1636 on: April 13, 2008, 12:32:22 pm »
Look, although people in Communist nations might be opressing people, they don't do it in the name of atheism.  They do it to overthrow the "class system" or in order to gain more power for themselves, whichever you believe.  They foster atheism because it helps them to achieve those goals.  On the other hand, in places like the middle-east their purpose is to further their religion.
* Plank of Wood slaps


GET A HOLD OF YOURSELF MAN. THE REVIEWS DO NOT EFFECT ANYTHING EVER.

QFT

Offline Dr. Croccer

  • Vanguard Venturer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Ceci n'est pas un gueu
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1637 on: April 13, 2008, 12:55:30 pm »
Look, although people in Communist nations might be opressing people, they don't do it in the name of atheism.  They do it to overthrow the "class system" or in order to gain more power for themselves, whichever you believe.  They foster atheism because it helps them to achieve those goals.  On the other hand, in places like the middle-east their purpose is to further their religion.
Haha. Good one. I have strong doubt that organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah actually believe the **** they say. There are truly devout amongst them but the leaders probably aren't. Same with the Bolsheviks. Once again, the majority of Commie rebels, both in Russia and in Spain, were plebs who hated religion. It's as simple as that. What are they? Irreligious folk that reject religion. So under what shoulderterm are they placed? Atheism. They are Atheist rebels in the same way Crusaders are Monotheist warriors.

Furthermore, there was no social class in the Soviet Union since 1920. And since the 50s in China. They kept State Atheism for multiple reasons.

Offline Snake Plissken

  • Phoenix Fighter
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Resident Evil 5 coming in March 13, '09
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1638 on: April 13, 2008, 01:49:06 pm »
Ireland and Italy?!

I'm lost.

Oh crap! No wonder I don't belong here at all.

Offline Tesla

  • Street Fighter Champion
  • *****
  • Posts: 10623
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1639 on: April 13, 2008, 02:15:38 pm »
No I just don't see how they are similar.
No way dude, you're trolling me.

Offline Kcronos

  • Boulder Dasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • The Dark Time Lord
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1640 on: April 13, 2008, 02:17:55 pm »
Look, although people in Communist nations might be opressing people, they don't do it in the name of atheism.  They do it to overthrow the "class system" or in order to gain more power for themselves, whichever you believe.  They foster atheism because it helps them to achieve those goals.  On the other hand, in places like the middle-east their purpose is to further their religion.
Haha. Good one. I have strong doubt that organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah actually believe the **** they say. There are truly devout amongst them but the leaders probably aren't. Same with the Bolsheviks. Once again, the majority of Commie rebels, both in Russia and in Spain, were plebs who hated religion. It's as simple as that. What are they? Irreligious folk that reject religion. So under what shoulderterm are they placed? Atheism. They are Atheist rebels in the same way Crusaders are Monotheist warriors.

Furthermore, there was no social class in the Soviet Union since 1920. And since the 50s in China. They kept State Atheism for multiple reasons.


Source please.
* Plank of Wood slaps


GET A HOLD OF YOURSELF MAN. THE REVIEWS DO NOT EFFECT ANYTHING EVER.

QFT

Offline Draugr

  • Zork Emperor
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • ORGASMIC.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1641 on: April 13, 2008, 02:26:16 pm »
Kings 2:23-24 --- The Holy Bible
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youth.

Offline 762

  • Goddess of Phobos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5073
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1642 on: April 13, 2008, 06:09:39 pm »
I HATE when people get Ireland and Scotland confused.

They're not actually that similar!

I just can't tell the difference between the accents unless they're really strong... :P

Spore countdowns: USA Europe

Offline B.A.S.

  • Time Pilot Trekker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
  • WAR GSP!
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1643 on: April 13, 2008, 06:39:59 pm »
Ive noticed that Irish accents seem to have a bit of a "happier" tone to them while Scottish Accents are generally alot deeper. Of course thats just my observations.
Your Friendly Canadian Fighter :)
"It is defeat that turns bone to flint, gristle to muscle- it is defeat that makes men invincible"- Henry Ward Beecher
Inkling:Durgon only comes by when he is taking a break from beating up people and animals

Offline Danzik

  • Gyruss Gyrusian
  • *****
  • Posts: 2748
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1644 on: April 14, 2008, 12:53:02 am »
Back on topic please.

Offline Doctor Z

  • Space Harrier
  • *****
  • Posts: 4072
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1645 on: April 14, 2008, 04:37:26 am »
The... semantics... They are destroying.... my... SANITY!!!

MAKE IT STOP!!! Pleeeeeeeeeeease!

Offline SmileyMan

  • Star Wars Padawan
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1646 on: April 14, 2008, 04:38:33 am »
Once again, the majority of Commie rebels, both in Russia and in Spain, were plebs who hated religion. It's as simple as that. What are they? Irreligious folk that reject religion. So under what shoulderterm are they placed? Atheism. They are Atheist rebels in the same way Crusaders are Monotheist warriors.


Irreligious folk can be atheists, polytheists and monotheists so it's very unfair to generalize the rebels and call them atheists because of their irreligiosity. Atheism and irreligiosity aren't directly connected the way monotheism and Christianity are, because Christianity requires monotheistic beliefs, while irreligiosity doesn't require atheistic beliefs. Crusaders did what they did in the name of Christianity, not in the name of monotheism.

Offline Uroboros

  • Duck Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3060
  • Am I awake?
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1647 on: April 14, 2008, 05:17:59 am »
What are they? Irreligious folk that reject religion. So under what shoulderterm are they placed? Atheism.
Did anybody ask them? Maybe there were more agnostics and non-religious theists amongst their ranks than was documented or known. You can be theist but without religion or coherant spirituality, and its very easy to never speak of those beliefs. Though, im just spinning on a side-tangent to the main issue here. Whilst the bickering between you and Smileyman could go back and forth without resolution, the point Smiley is trying to make, is that atheism is a default of nonbelief. Both of your views are in part, correct. Though I am more inclined to agree with SmileyMan here, despite the entire arguement being on a bit of a technicality and taking exception with how something is phrased.

"I believe this, because I am a theist" is a bit of a mismatch of wording and terms.
"I believe this, because I am a Buddhist" is better.
"I follow Buddhism, so I believe this" is also acceptable.
"I am theist, so I believe this" is another mismatch of wording and terms.

To do something in the name of atheism is a mismatch of terms, as it would rather be in the name of your own opinions and values. The link to atheism would be disconnected from the issue. No matter what those opinions and values are, they would be inherantly seperate from atheism, given atheism is only a term and a tag to mean a lack of belief in supreme beings. Even if they had stood up and publicly announced "I do this in the name of atheism", it would be inaccurate. Even "I aim to purge religion and spread atheism", that too would not be inherantly atheist in any substantial manner. However, if you are only approaching this in the manner of "This person was an atheist, and they did X, Y, and Z", that would, however, be tenable. The point that is being thrown back and forth, is that if used as nothing more than a loose connector, just a background shoulderterm, it is valid. But linking a persons acts as actually 'in the name of atheism' is a bit of a flawwed premise.

Quote
Crusaders did what they did in the name of Christianity, not in the name of monotheism.
A good example, however if someone wanted to cite the crusades as an example of past actions done (indirectly) in line with monotheism, that would be valid. Especially if they were only trying to reference the kinds of mindsets sported by some of the monotheistic. Here, the arguement hinges entirely on the directness of the relationship, and in the lack of clarity, thats where this bickering was born.

Croccer, it might be worth restating again how direct you intended your link to be... because this all seems like a lot of bickering over an unelaborated technicality.

Offline Dr. Croccer

  • Vanguard Venturer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Ceci n'est pas un gueu
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1648 on: April 14, 2008, 09:07:25 am »
Look, although people in Communist nations might be opressing people, they don't do it in the name of atheism.  They do it to overthrow the "class system" or in order to gain more power for themselves, whichever you believe.  They foster atheism because it helps them to achieve those goals.  On the other hand, in places like the middle-east their purpose is to further their religion.
Haha. Good one. I have strong doubt that organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah actually believe the **** they say. There are truly devout amongst them but the leaders probably aren't. Same with the Bolsheviks. Once again, the majority of Commie rebels, both in Russia and in Spain, were plebs who hated religion. It's as simple as that. What are they? Irreligious folk that reject religion. So under what shoulderterm are they placed? Atheism. They are Atheist rebels in the same way Crusaders are Monotheist warriors.

Furthermore, there was no social class in the Soviet Union since 1920. And since the 50s in China. They kept State Atheism for multiple reasons.


Source please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror_%28Spain%29#Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Atrocities_of_the_Red_Terror

And irreligion is a part of Atheism, like Christianity is of Monotheism.

Quote
Irreligious folk can be atheists, polytheists and monotheists so it's very unfair to generalize the rebels and call them atheists because of their irreligiosity.
The majority of irreligious theists are those that pay little to no attention to their faith. The majority of the Commie rebels, especially the early Red Army, were fervent Marxists that took every sentence literally. These were the guys that created the rather oppressive State Atheism in the first place. If you were talking about the later Commies, like in the 60s, then you would have had a good argument.

Quote
Atheism and irreligiosity aren't directly connected the way monotheism and Christianity are, because Christianity requires monotheistic beliefs, while irreligiosity doesn't require atheistic beliefs
Look pretty similair to me for two things that aren't directly related.

''Irreligion is a lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion.[1] Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism or general secularism.''

''Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.''

So unless all Atheists are suddenly Buddhists, irreligion and Atheist are quite similair it seems.

Another thing I don't get is why you treat State Atheism like it is completely different from Atheism.

Quote
Crusaders did what they did in the name of Christianity, not in the name of monotheism.
I might be wrong here but didn't they fight for a single God, the very point of monotheism, rather than in the name of Jesus, a unique Christian value which, according to you, is required to be able to fight in the name of anything. I might be wrong here but I don't think there is a specific rulebook for fighting for anything. I can claim I fight in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, living a strict Pastafarian life and I would be a Pastafarian. Committing atrocities. Yep. Then one could argue that you can't fight in the name of something that was made up on the Internet, even though me and several other Pastafarians proved otherwise by killing in the name of X. I.o.w. I would be a devout Pastafarian, kiling people for reasons best known to myself for Christ's sake.

And add the fact that Christianity is Monotheist.

Quote
Did anybody ask them? Maybe there were more agnostics and non-religious theists amongst their ranks than was documented or known. You can be theist but without religion or coherant spirituality, and its very easy to never speak of those beliefs.
Read above. And I'm talking about the guys that were obviously bat**** insane and shot priests through the head. It's like saying the the most hardcore Jihadists might be closet Atheists.


Quote
the point Smiley is trying to make, is that atheism is a default of nonbelief
The main problem is that Atheism has almost been molded into a religion on it's own rather than a religious grouping or basis. The fact that the multiple ''streams'' of Atheism aren't well-known or exactly different from mainstream Atheism then Orthodox Christianity is to Catholicism often leading to the case that Atheism is regarded as a brother of let's say irreligion rather then it's father.

Saying ''I'm an Atheist'' is seen the same as saying ''I'm a Christian'' rather than ''I'm a Abrahamic Monotheist''.

Quote
"I believe this, because I am a theist" is a bit of a mismatch of wording and terms.
"I believe this, because I am a Buddhist" is better.
"I follow Buddhism, so I believe this" is also acceptable.
"I am theist, so I believe this" is another mismatch of wording and terms.
So saying ''I'm a Polytheist, I believe in multiple gods'' is wrong?

Quote
To do something in the name of atheism is a mismatch of terms, as it would rather be in the name of your own opinions and values. The link to atheism would be disconnected from the issue. No matter what those opinions and values are, they would be inherantly seperate from atheism, given atheism is only a term and a tag to mean a lack of belief in supreme beings. Even if they had stood up and publicly announced "I do this in the name of atheism", it would be inaccurate. Even "I aim to purge religion and spread atheism", that too would not be inherantly atheist in any substantial manner. However, if you are only approaching this in the manner of "This person was an atheist, and they did X, Y, and Z", that would, however, be tenable. The point that is being thrown back and forth, is that if used as nothing more than a loose connector, just a background shoulderterm, it is valid. But linking a persons acts as actually 'in the name of atheism' is a bit of a flawwed premise.
The main problem is that it already happened, proving that you can fight in the name of Atheism. You can fight in the name of everything, as long as it makes sense.

Quote
Croccer, it might be worth restating again how direct you intended your link to be... because this all seems like a lot of bickering over an unelaborated technicality.
....? What do you  mean?







Offline Uroboros

  • Duck Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 3060
  • Am I awake?
    • View Profile
Re: Religion
« Reply #1649 on: April 14, 2008, 10:49:51 am »
And irreligion is a part of Atheism, like Christianity is of Monotheism.
Actually, no it isnt. Its possible to be religious without believing a word of it. Though maybe thats just me nitpicking, atheism really doesnt go much deeper than "I dont believe in any god". But as you know, quite a few atheists are still religious. Such is the social world of we crazy humans.

Quote
So unless all Atheists are suddenly Buddhists, irreligion and Atheist are quite similair it seems.
Similar, but not the same. This is all about the "in the name of atheism" stuff, isnt it? Lets not get too far off track or this'll have no end.

Quote
I can claim I fight in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, living a strict Pastafarian life and I would be a Pastafarian. Committing atrocities. Yep.
But that doesnt mean you would be commiting those atrocities in the name of theism, would it? This is the entire point.

Quote
The main problem is that Atheism has almost been molded into a religion on it's own rather than a religious grouping or basis.
Doesnt matter how people go, atheism is still nothing more than the disbelief in gods. Someone can stand up and shout "In the name of atheism" until their blue in the face, but it doesnt mean atheism will ever be anything more than a flat, simple, straight term, and nothing more.

Quote
Quote
"I believe this, because I am a theist" is a bit of a mismatch of wording and terms.
"I believe this, because I am a Buddhist" is better.
"I follow Buddhism, so I believe this" is also acceptable.
"I am theist, so I believe this" is another mismatch of wording and terms.

So saying ''I'm a Polytheist, I believe in multiple gods'' is wrong?
"I am a polytheist, so I believe in multiple gods" would be wrong. Stay inside the example please.

The point here was that you become a polytheist if you believe in multiple gods, not start believing in multiple gods because you're a polytheist. Im talking mismatches of terms here. Misspoken and slanted logic. Again, even if someone was to go on a murdering rampage "in the name of atheism", killing religious folk, that isnt in the name of atheism at all, its in the name of their own opinions... because atheism is nothing more than a state of belief, not an organisation or religion. The very wording of "atrocities in the name of atheism" is flawwed is what im trying to say, its like the wording of "they attacked our freedom". It doesnt make sense, and im trying to point this out, even if im fumbling at it.

Quote
The main problem is that it already happened, proving that you can fight in the name of Atheism. You can fight in the name of everything, as long as it makes sense.
No, you can CLAIM to, but that doesnt mean you are. I can claim, as I blow the head off a puppy, that I did it in the name of agnosticism, but really, im only doing it because of my own twisted opinions and crazy-ass views. We're not talking tributes here. We're talking values. No "I slaughtered a thousand peasants in the name of my lord Dr.Croccer". But "I executed a hundred pigdogs in the name of my faith Blahblahishism". And atheism has no inherant values, just "I do not believe", so the only possible manner of doing something "in the name of" is in a "tribute to" manner. No matter how many tributes or claims are made, the furthest you can do anything in the name of atheism, is not believe in gods. Thats it. There aint no more.

Quote

....? What do you  mean?
Urgh, nevermind.
Lap 12 here we come.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 10:54:45 am by Uroboros »