The Hype Religion Discussion and Debate thread!

[Danger Mouse]

Inaccurate. While it's probably true that not all religions have "stifled" science, it is also true that scientific development has sometimes been suppressed or marginalized for religious purposes. The most obvious example is that it was once illegal in certain states to teach evolution, rather than creation, in schools.

Yeah. Sad, isn't it?

 

[Saint]

Fixed.

Well, your evasion was almost subtle.

Wait, is "almost" the word I want?

 

[Danger Mouse]

Well, your evasion was almost subtle.

Wait, is "almost" the word I want?

Evasion? Naah. Merely correcting a misrepresentation.

 

[Kurosawa]

There's no doubt that the religious promise of an afterlife has great appeal, but I think in a way it's a self indulged illusion. The very idea of a God granting an afterlife is like believing that you will live with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny after you die. It astounds me that most religious followers will condone adults who still believe in santa clause or that they are the next prophet, even in the belief of U.F.O's. All those things show evidence of improbablity, but God and an afterlife seems to be too much of a risk for one less thing to believe in.

I think for many atheists and/or agnostics, death is just as frightening as it is for theists. The difference is in how each copes. In my opinion, once you study history and science, you begin to understand that if nothing really matters, therefore all that matters is what we do now.

Christian, Jews and Muslims are still trying to say that their Santa Clause is real in order to feel better about themselves. That's sad.

The only religions I can even remotley respect are Hindus and Buddhists. They understood the cycle of life and how all things end up. Despite their ideas in reincarnation, it still leaves the present as the most important factor of existence.

There is nothing more terrifying to me than death because I am so unsure if there is an afterlife. The older I get the more I dwell on it. It's extremely unhealthy. I have also become extremely nihilistic.

Sure--but you can just also find a reason to go on and look to the future within your life, regardless of the fact that it's going to end. Again, I just don't see how an afterlife is necessary at all.


Life is what you make of it. Certainly, there are some individuals for whom circumstance absolutely dictates suffering, but I imagine those of us living in the developed world have the tools at our disposal to ensure that life is more than an "exercise in pain." Not suggesting that's easy, of course.

That said, my life is pretty decent and the vast majority of my problems are of my own design, so I'm not qualified to speak on how surmountable or insurmountable suffering is.

My life sucks, but that is primarily due to my own personal failures and lack of discipline. But I do see an afterlife as essential to giving life itself reason. I have a hard time finding motivation to improve something that will just end with death anyway. But when I refer to people whose lives are nothing but exercises in pain, I mean those who are oppressed in countries across the world for various reasons, some (not all) for religious reasons. I don't know if the removal of religion itself would improve the world but I do believe secularism and religious tolerance in all nations is essential.

 

[Saint]

Evasion? Naah. Merely correcting a misrepresentation.

So you feel that by removing my request to cite an example of your claim, you have more accurately represented my post? The post where I wrote:

I'm willing to accept that this is possible, if you're able to cite which religions exist today that have maintained identical practices and beliefs since "since time immemorial."

I understand the problem, now: it is that you cannot read, or are not interested in reading. This suggests that further discourse with you would be fruitless.

 

[Bill]

Again, as I have stated earlier, you're quoting Christianity as an example and wrongly used it as a representation of ALL religion. May I remind you that this is a Religion thread, not a Christianity thread.

Um, no. Not all religions use the moniker God. I have specifically referenced Christianity in my posts. If you meant a god other than the Christian God, then you should outline this in response to my posts. Christianity is the religion that most of us are discussing at this time. If you have another prominent religion with another prominent god, then discuss it instead of dancing around the issues at hand or dodging them outright.

Right now, you're misrepresenting my intent, but not offering up anything relevant in response to better substantiate yours. I can either assume that you are a troll and this is some type of game, you have nothing relevant to offer and are in over your head, or you are holding out with the intent of providing a long description of all those other religion to which you are referring.

 

[Saint]

Um, no. Not all religions use the moniker God. I have specifically referenced Christianity in my posts. If you meant a god other than the Christian God, then you should outline this in response to my posts.

Got the same deal from him.

 

[Bill]

That is really debatable. I believe that things written between Genesis and Revelations to be the "Truth". But I don't believe it to be the infallible word of God because simply put, it's man's accounts on God's teachings. I'll give a quick example of what I mean.

The 4 gospels all basically give the same account of Jesus' teachings. If I were a reporter today and I interviewed 4 people who followed a local celebrity around for 3yrs I'd probably get 4 distinct versions of the same story. Many non-believers quote the gospels and point out varying discrepancies but I chalk it up to 4 different dudes and their unique perspectives.

The Bible was written in a language other than English. Taking Genesis as an example, the issues that some people have with it, such as a different order for Creation between the first two chapters, is met with different types of rationalizations by various apologists. They are, of course, all dealing with the English version of the text in which the difference in vernacular and writing style is no longer apparent. Biblical scholars who read the actual Hebrew find that there are two distinct authors of Genesis, each with the different intent of the story they are writing.

Couple the above with evidence that the stories are not an accurate representation of Earth's history, and the idea of the Creation aspects being total bunk are more apparent.

Apologists scramble around fixing the Bible with excuses on why it contradicts itself, yelling about context, when they haven't taken it or the society that spawned it in context with regard to its original language. I understand why, though. Can you imagine telling millions of devout believers that the Bible was actually written by man, and that is where their faith actually lies? They could not conceive of such a thing, but that is more likely, the "Truth."

 

[Hotwire]

Religion never stifled science.

Let's take Islam, for instance. At the height of it, Muslim scientific and mathematics scholars broke new ground in their respective fields. And they were devout Muslims within the Muslim empire who went to mosques daily and led prayer congregations. All with the blessing of their religion.

Um, doesn't the Catholic church have a fairly well documented history of doing just that? Granted it was hundreds of years ago, but still.

 

[Danalys]

there's a reason science and maths isn't as strong in the muslim world as it was. something to do with fundamentalism.

 

[-Arya-]

Interesting; I suppose the Jains and Buddhists aren't aware of this.

Hey uh Danger Mouse, would you like to respond to this? You know; when you claimed that all faiths require a God for morality...

 

[Paroxysm]

I'm glad that Stephen Hawking in challenging Sir Issac Newton's theory that God must have been involved in the creation because our solar system couldn't have come out of chaos simply through nature.

The discovery other planets orbiting a star other than the sun makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions far less remarkable and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.

 

[Alex The Great]

I love You

 

[Danger Mouse]

So you feel that by removing my request to cite an example of your claim, you have more accurately represented my post? The post where I wrote:

I'm willing to accept that this is possible, if you're able to cite which religions exist today that have maintained identical practices and beliefs since "since time immemorial."

I understand the problem, now: it is that you cannot read, or are not interested in reading. This suggests that further discourse with you would be fruitless.

Let's look at what you said JUST IMMEDIATELY after what you quoted above, shall we?

I'm willing to accept that this is possible, if you're able to cite which religions exist today that have maintained identical practices and beliefs since "since time immemorial."

It is, of course, largely beside the point.

Since you've already dismissed it at the outset before I could even respond, I don't see why I should even bother. It's not that I cannot read or am not interested in reading. I'm just not interested in responding to someone who has such a dismissive attitude. I know people like you. You're set in your own ways. You don't want a discourse. You're just fishing for something to clobber religion with. Even before giving me the the opportunity to respond, you've shot me down. You're not only dismissive, but you're also condescending and combative. That, sir, is a clear indication to me of the kind of person you are. The kind I'd rather not waste my time in engagement. I am here to make friends, to enrich my life. Not to make enemies. So, when faced with a rottweiler, I'd sooner walk away, take another route and not let it ruin my day. There's a proper decorum for a discourse. Look it up. Check my history and you'll see that I've been here before many years ago, discussed this very issue in this very thread (or its earlier incarnation) and ended it always ended up ugly. Several years ago, I might have taken you up and bore you with religious litany. Today, not quite so. I just want to enjoy my morning tea. I hesitated in rejoining the fray. I guess I made a wrong decision.

Heck, if you wanna chalk this up as a win, by all means. I shan't deny you of it. Knock yourself out. I'll even help you out. "I hereby declare Saint as the winner of this debate. Congratulations. It was indeed VERY, VERY civil and engaging."

At least we agree on one thing: further discourse would be pointless. You're not interested in one.

So, , tsamina mina zangalewa, gong xi fa cai and all that jazz.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Hey uh Danger Mouse, would you like to respond to this? You know; when you claimed that all faiths require a God for morality...

Hmm? Oh. Sorry. Must've missed your post, buried under all those riveting discussions. My bad.

You're right. I made a mistake. Not all faiths require a deity, as you have pointed out. Most, perhaps. But not all.

 

[Danger Mouse]

Got the same deal from him.

Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Danger Mouse]

Um, no. Not all religions use the moniker God. I have specifically referenced Christianity in my posts. If you meant a god other than the Christian God, then you should outline this in response to my posts. Christianity is the religion that most of us are discussing at this time. If you have another prominent religion with another prominent god, then discuss it instead of dancing around the issues at hand or dodging them outright.

Right now, you're misrepresenting my intent, but not offering up anything relevant in response to better substantiate yours. I can either assume that you are a troll and this is some type of game, you have nothing relevant to offer and are in over your head, or you are holding out with the intent of providing a long description of all those other religion to which you are referring.

First, allow me to dispel the notion that I am a troll. This isn't a new thread, Bill. I've walked down this road before many years ago, discussed on this very same issue with greater fervour.

My initial intention, if I may take you to a few pages back, was to respond to the Epicurus Riddle and I have done so. I have to apologise, though, that I have no intention of being further sucked into this debate, especially when I've been here before several years ago. I will only be rehashing the same thing and it is tiresome. I only wanted to put my 2-cents on what I thought of the Epicurus Riddle. I have done so, and now I just want to move on. Some disagreed with my little dissertation and I'm fine with that.

So, yes, please carry on. I'll just sit here by the bleachers.

 

[Bill]

First, allow me to dispel the notion that I am a troll. This isn't a new thread, Bill. I've walked down this road before many years ago, discussed on this very same issue with greater fervour.

My initial intention, if I may take you to a few pages back, was to respond to the Epicurus Riddle and I have done so. I have to apologise, though, that I have no intention of being further sucked into this debate, especially when I've been here before several years ago. I will only be rehashing the same thing and it is tiresome. I only wanted to put my 2-cents on what I thought of the Epicurus Riddle. I have done so, and now I just want to move on. Some disagreed with my little dissertation and I'm fine with that.

So, yes, please carry on. I'll just sit here by the bleachers.

I know it isn't a new thread, I was here since pg. 6. And in the now deleted Christianity thread before that one. And the Evolution/Creation thread before that one. And numerous Science and Theology threads in newsgroups and message boards abroad before this site was born. Whoopedy doo. I like discussing/debating/arguing the subject because you can learn something even when you cover the same ground, and I still learn even when it seems like I'm arguing with some poster like there's no tomorrow.

I appreciate your point of view, and the discussion, as there are always new ways to challenge a point of view when someone new enters in the fray.

 

[Saint]

Since you've already dismissed it at the outset before I could even respond, I don't see why I should even bother. It's not that I cannot read or am not interested in reading. I'm just not interested in responding to someone who has such a dismissive attitude.

The problem is not that I was dismissive, it is that your unsubstantiated claim did not provide any meaningful counterpoint to my argument, as I went on to explain. Hence, "it was largely beside the point." Even so, I asked you elaborate. You didn't. Whether you refused because you were talking out your ass, or because "Boo-hoo, Saint is such a bad guy" makes no difference to me. Your argument is equally empty in either case.

You're set in your own ways.

That's cute how you pretended to know about my "ways" and how I'm "set" in them. I'll never understand why people insist on saying that--if your ways are sound, then logically you would be set in them. Incidentally, I was raised Catholic, and my "ways" have changed quite a bit.

You don't want a discourse. You're just fishing for something to clobber religion with.

Hardly. It was your ridiculous claims I was challenging, not religion. Perhaps read more carefully. I don't attack religions, I attack bad ideas.

Even before giving me the the opportunity to respond, you've shot me down. You're not only dismissive, but you're also condescending and combative. That, sir, is a clear indication to me of the kind of person you are. The kind I'd rather not waste my time in engagement. I am here to make friends, to enrich my life. Not to make enemies. So, when faced with a rottweiler, I'd sooner walk away, take another route and not let it ruin my day. There's a proper decorum for a discourse. Look it up.

Blah blah blah. "Saint is so terrible." Been there, heard that, didn't care the first time. Here is the reality of the situation: you made a series of increasingly ridiculous claims. I challenged your claims. You refused to support them, and now you're attacking my character. Sorry, I fail to see how it is my conduct that is lacking here.

 

[Danger Mouse]

The problem is not that I was dismissive, it is that your unsubstantiated claim did not provide any meaningful counterpoint to my argument, as I went on to explain. Hence, "it was largely beside the point."

Your "beside the point" comment dismissed my opportunity to substantiate my claim before I could even do so.

 

[Danger Mouse]

I know it isn't a new thread, I was here since pg. 6. And in the now deleted Christianity thread before that one. And the Evolution/Creation thread before that one. And numerous Science and Theology threads in newsgroups and message boards abroad before this site was born. Whoopedy doo. I like discussing/debating/arguing the subject because you can learn something even when you cover the same ground, and I still learn even when it seems like I'm arguing with some poster like there's no tomorrow.

I appreciate your point of view, and the discussion, as there are always new ways to challenge a point of view when someone new enters in the fray.

I appreciate your candor, Bill. Looking forward to discussing matters with you in the future.

I'm a Muslim, by the way. Not one with a bomb strapped to my chest, I'm afraid. Or one who spends time dissecting the Quran for a deeper meaning into the afterlife. But one who likes comic books, movies, the occasional double cheeseburger and ogles at women with nice racks. t:

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I appreciate your candor, Bill. Looking forward to discussing matters with you in the future.

I'm a Muslim, by the way. Not one with a bomb strapped to my chest, I'm afraid. Or one who spends time dissecting the Quran for a deeper meaning into the afterlife. But one who likes comic books, movies, the occasional double cheeseburger and ogles at women with nice racks. t:

Mashallah!!!! Team "What kind of Muslim are you?" for the win.

 

[Carcharodon]

The real problem isn't overpopulation though, its more a huge problem in how we organize ourselves and distribute our resources. It not really a matter of space, I mean everyone could have a 30 by 30 room to themselves and we would all fit within the boarders of Texas. It is also known that there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, we just dont. Clean water can be another matter, there are different ways of cleaning, distributing and recycling water.

All you'd be doing is creating more and more population growth until the planet would not, under any circumstances, be able to support the artificially bloated sum of people. You'd be delaying the inevitable. And humans consume far more than just food and water.

Despite what some would like to believe, there is a very, very real limit to the number of humans this planet can support.

 

[Dark Phantom]

I appreciate your candor, Bill. Looking forward to discussing matters with you in the future.

I'm a Muslim, by the way. Not one with a bomb strapped to my chest, I'm afraid. Or one who spends time dissecting the Quran for a deeper meaning into the afterlife. But one who likes comic books, movies, the occasional double cheeseburger and ogles at women with nice racks. t:

Were you afraid of being victimized? Because I'm pretty sure the members here discriminate equally . For me, I just wanted to know where you stand to gain some perspective.

There's no doubt that religion has it's benefits. I mean imagine a world where no hope existed for the deathly sick. If they cant even live to the fullest in the present, I see no reason to deny them some kind of hope of a fulfilling afterlife in order to preserve there happiness. Yet, at the same time I think that's quite dangerous. Has anyone ever seen "The Invention of Lying?". I really wouldn't be surprised if the whole idea of an afterlife came about because someone desperatley wanted to comfort a loved one who was afraid to die. I guess in order to keep the lie alive for hopeless people like that, it needs to spread until everyone tricks themselves into thinking it's true.

It's more of an ethical question when you think about it. If something never proven to exist made someone happy, would you deny them that? I always rely back to the analogy of someone believing in Santa Clause until they die. Obviously, he doesn't exist in any literal form. Yet society would frown upon a grown adult who still thinks that there is an old man in a red suit who comes down the chimney to deliver presents on christmas eve.

I guess lies are necessary. If only people would acknowledge that, but there lies the contradiction. If you acknowledge it isnt true, then there would be no point trying to preserve it.

 

[Danger Mouse]

"Victimised"? Hehe. Hardly. I've been around since spidermanhype, had my fair share of controversies and was a mod here on SHH for a spell (one of the most disliked, to boot). So, I'm no stranger to how victimised one can be here, having been on both ends of the spectrum. :wink:

Be that as it may, I hope you don't mind if I respond in a few days time. It's the eve of Eid (Muslim's day of celebration, kinda like Christmas) and I won't be online until Monday.

Cheers!