We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.

Young Americans losing their religion at a rapid pace

13468917

Posts

  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    Oh I just can't help myself.

    See: New Testament.
    And then Mohammed came along and started a bunch of wars.

    Seriously, who is in charge of patching over there?

    WotanAnubis on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Ohtsam wrote: »
    You know talking with one of my pastors about why the old testament is in the bible when it contradicts most of what Christians tend to say they stand for, his answer was that the old testament was there since the new testament referenced many of the events in it as and because it also contained many of the stories prophesying the coming of Christ. He also said it serves as a record of that which Jesus was sent to change. Whether or not it was the official stance of my church or not I've never actually found out but its the explanation that makes sense.

    No it doesn't. It makes so little sense that it makes nonsense.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    It's my own personal viewpoint (opinion statement, ahoy!) that moderate religious adherence and practice is a healthier and preferable future alternative in modern society than simple absolute rejection of religion entirely.

    Religious practices and cultural institutions related to religion can, and very demonstrably have, the capacity to affect very real and positive change on both a personal and larger external level.

    It is my belief (check that out!) that absolutely none of the positive values or merits of religious practice or religious groups are, in and of themselves, exclusive to religion.

    In other words, I don't think anything positive that you can get from religion can only be gained by religion.

    As a result, I don't consider religious belief or practice to be a necessary component of anyone's life or culture. However, (and this is very important) I don't believe this makes it invalid or worthless.

    Nor do I think the historical (and continuing modern and even future) abuses or transgressions committed by, or in the name of, religious values or institutions in and of themselves call the entirety of all religious belief or practice into question.

    I don't consider, for example, an entirely non-religious atheistic or agnostic culture an inherently good or bad idea. Personally, I don't desire it, as I derive personal positive value from my religious beliefs and practices and given the absolutely minimal (if any) negative impact these beliefs and practices bring on my life I see no reason to remove them.

    I agree with your argument but don't see how you could construct a coherent rebuttal of religious extremism/fundamentalism with that belief set. Once you accept that faith alone is sufficient grounds for belief and, thus, action, then you open the door to Pandora's box. And although you never state such a view outright, you have never addressed the truth value of your beliefs, simply that the results of these beliefs are, in your opinion, positive. While I have no significant issue with this on a personal level, on a larger level, your arguments seems to take great pains to avoid the issue of truth and instead strives for a relativist argument.

    If every religious person in the world held such views, I'd say that they're entirely harmless. But unless we actually address the truth value of religious claims, it's impossible to rebut extremists without letting them dictate the terms of the argument.

    For more on the whole "relativism vs. extremism" thing and my stance on it, there's a post on this very page where I expound a bit on my own practices and views vs. others and that should tell you a good bit more about how I think.

    If I read you correctly, the essence of what you are saying here seems to be that as a moderate, I'm essentially a harmless religious person (thanks!) but that my viewpoints on religious moderation don't really provide any valuable method for combating religious extremism.

    Which... they don't. You're right.

    I have nothing to offer you in this regard, other than encouragement to continue to combat religious fundamentalist activism and zealous extremism with facts and logic.

    In fact, I would even consider myself your ally in this regard! I'm not fan of extremism. Makes the rest of us look bad, after all!

    Attempting to use such methods on me personally will be met with shrugging resignation, as as moderate but nonetheless passionate religious practitioner, it's not really of any great importance to substantiate to you the factual nature of what I believe.

    After all, I'm not asking you to believe in it or asserting it is factually correct!

    Pony on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    You know, it's been pointed out repeatedly to you in this thread that religion, in particular the christian religion has been a continually changing landscape since it's inception. If you refuse to apply historical context to your interpretations of the bible, you can't use the argument of "Some stuff in the old testament is really f'd up" to prove that religion is a farce.
    Invoking the word "context" does not magically make the lines in question disappear. I always get confused when people think this kind of argument works.

    I mean, the "context" of the line is explicit. God doesn't want the Canaanites to influence the Hebrews. He wants the Hebrews' culture to remain pure. So he orders the Hebrews to kill everyone around them.

    Qingu on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    Oh I just can't help myself.

    See: New Testament.
    And then Mohammed came along and started a bunch of wars.

    Seriously, who is in charge of patching over there?

    The Bahai?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Lump me in among those young Americans who see organized religion as a backwards and oppressive bastion of intolerance and injustice.

    I look forward to the death of your hick gods.

    MrMister on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Anyway, @ the OP: I'm not 100% sure if a shift away from organized religion actually means a shift toward reason. Nate Silver, superstar of FiveThirtyEight.com and baseball god for PECOTA, mentioned in an interview that he was bothered by the fact that some of his readers said, basically, "I don't understand your math but I really enjoy your analysis."

    If you read FiveThirtyEight.com, there is no way to assess the validity of his arguments unless you understand the math. People on there were simply assuming his math was right and that he was some kind of all-knowing oracle. So even if our idols change, I'm not sure if our underlying thought processes have really come so far......

    sanstodo on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Instead of all that nitpicking, can't we all just agree that religious faith in itself is an irrational and dangerous thing?

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    According to who? You?

    Now who is imposing their belief upon others?

    Besides, the key word, if you'll look where I bolded, was dangerous. I guess I just don't feel very dangerous.

    joshofalltrades on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    But aren't even terms like "The Bible" and "Christianity" very relative terms? Protestants don't use the Apocrypha, Catholics don't use the Pseudapigrapha. Would a form of Christianity transmitted entirely orally (for whatever reason) still be Christianity if they practiced their religion the same as other Christians, minus the text? And, if so, how far would they have to drift from that sort of practice before it was no longer "Christianity" and it became something else?
    Well, everything's relative. I'm sure we've been over this before in some other thread: "Christianity" is impossible to define.

    But for most Christians, the religion involves the salvific death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But this event makes absolutely no sense without Biblical context—salvation from what? You are correct that there are many versions of the Bible, but all of them contain Genesis and most of the Old Testament. All of them contain the four gospels and Acts and Paul's letters (and pseudo-letters). The religion coalesced as the texts became canonical.

    Even for Christians who don't care about the resurrection, or salvation, and just claim to follow Jesus' "teachings," how do you know what those teachings even are unless you accept the veracity of the Bible? Unless you just want to treat Jesus like another ancient philospher, like Socrates or Plato, in which case you're basically a non-Christian as far as I'm concerned.

    I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm so used to studying syncretic religions where these lines become extremely blurred, but I could very easily imagine a form of "Christianity" without concepts like the creation or original sin.

    But, as you mentioned, this is probably our two disciplines talking here. I'm used to studying how religion is performed by the average practitioner, and the idea of the "real" interpretation of religion as defined by founding members/scholars is almost moot.

    Duffel on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ohtsam wrote: »
    You know talking with one of my pastors about why the old testament is in the bible when it contradicts most of what Christians tend to say they stand for, his answer was that the old testament was there since the new testament referenced many of the events in it as and because it also contained many of the stories prophesying the coming of Christ. He also said it serves as a record of that which Jesus was sent to change. Whether or not it was the official stance of my church or not I've never actually found out but its the explanation that makes sense.

    It's as good a reason as any. I always figured the change had a lot to do with the religion slowly homogenizing as it grew bigger and took hold, and naturally it would have to develop a message more tasteful to new believers.

    Dark_Side on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Anyway, @ the OP: I'm not 100% sure if a shift away from organized religion actually means a shift toward reason. Nate Silver, superstar of FiveThirtyEight.com and baseball god for PECOTA, mentioned in an interview that he was bothered by the fact that some of his readers said, basically, "I don't understand your math but I really enjoy your analysis."

    If you read FiveThirtyEight.com, there is no way to assess the validity of his arguments unless you understand the math. People on there were simply assuming his math was right and that he was some kind of all-knowing oracle. So even if our idols change, I'm not sure if our underlying thought processes have really come so far......

    Well, you could understand how he scores the different poll companies without knowing how he puts it into his maths.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    Oh I just can't help myself.

    See: New Testament.

    That just made things worse with eternal hellfire.


    True dat. God at the most just killed you in the OT. Jesus lets you know that things are much, much worse in the NT.

    Brian888 on
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dman wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    Will this make society more isolated?

    I think we can make some interesting discussion over questions like these.

    Your interesting discussion seems to focus how less religion will make things worse in specific ways, which I find questionable.

    They were merely questions. Qingu continued with the line of thought and argued that it was a good thing. I did not mean to color the discussion.

    Though, I think joshofalltrades brings up a good point. While online communities like PA or "real life" groups such as LAN party groups for example, are good to have and do provide for a social need, when stuff like you need a car or money cause of an emergency, I think its rarer that a group based on a social interest that would provide this level of help.

    I see though that people in this thread don't seem to be interested in this type of conversation, so I'll be leaving it.

    Your suggesting churches provide a social network of support, I don't disagree, but I see no reason why younger generations won't have an equal or stronger support network free from religion.
    Facebook for example can easily expand and maintain your social support network.

    This is true, and I think this is where religions, particularly my own, are lagging behind. We're too busy:

    a) Defending ourselves (ie- we're sorry for the Fundie's, we're not all like that!)
    b) Fighting amongst ourselves (ie- which sect of Christianity is correct?)
    c) Focusing on the wrong things
    d) Holding on to outdated "traditions" and not updating ourselves for today's society

    I think Religions in general need to be more accomodating, more outgoing, and more based on meeting the needs of individuals (of their own religion and of their communities as a whole), rather than squabbling about stupid stuff.

    And, if I'm honest, we need to be better at practicing what we preach. Honestly, I'm not surprised by this survey/article.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ohtsam wrote: »
    You know talking with one of my pastors about why the old testament is in the bible when it contradicts most of what Christians tend to say they stand for, his answer was that the old testament was there since the new testament referenced many of the events in it as and because it also contained many of the stories prophesying the coming of Christ. He also said it serves as a record of that which Jesus was sent to change. Whether or not it was the official stance of my church or not I've never actually found out but its the explanation that makes sense.
    Ask your pastor if he thinks God really ordered his followers to commit genocide or if that part of the Bible that quotes him as giving the order is just lying.

    Qingu on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    But aren't even terms like "The Bible" and "Christianity" very relative terms? Protestants don't use the Apocrypha, Catholics don't use the Pseudapigrapha. Would a form of Christianity transmitted entirely orally (for whatever reason) still be Christianity if they practiced their religion the same as other Christians, minus the text? And, if so, how far would they have to drift from that sort of practice before it was no longer "Christianity" and it became something else?
    Well, everything's relative. I'm sure we've been over this before in some other thread: "Christianity" is impossible to define.

    But for most Christians, the religion involves the salvific death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But this event makes absolutely no sense without Biblical context—salvation from what? You are correct that there are many versions of the Bible, but all of them contain Genesis and most of the Old Testament. All of them contain the four gospels and Acts and Paul's letters (and pseudo-letters). The religion coalesced as the texts became canonical.

    Even for Christians who don't care about the resurrection, or salvation, and just claim to follow Jesus' "teachings," how do you know what those teachings even are unless you accept the veracity of the Bible? Unless you just want to treat Jesus like another ancient philospher, like Socrates or Plato, in which case you're basically a non-Christian as far as I'm concerned.

    I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm so used to studying syncretic religions where these lines become extremely blurred, but I could very easily imagine a form of "Christianity" without concepts like the creation or original sin.

    But, as you mentioned, this is probably our two disciplines talking here. I'm used to studying how religion is performed by the average practitioner, and the idea of the "real" interpretation of religion as defined by founding members/scholars is almost moot.

    Where the hell did original sin come from, anyway? It doesn't exist at all in Judaism.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • tyriontyrion Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    What is the evidence for this? (Suitably sufficient enough to back up such a incredibly broad claim.)

    tyrion on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    tyrion wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    What is the evidence for this? (Suitably sufficient enough to back up such a incredibly broad claim.)

    OH NO!

    A TRAP CARD!

    :D

    Pony on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Anyway, @ the OP: I'm not 100% sure if a shift away from organized religion actually means a shift toward reason. Nate Silver, superstar of FiveThirtyEight.com and baseball god for PECOTA, mentioned in an interview that he was bothered by the fact that some of his readers said, basically, "I don't understand your math but I really enjoy your analysis."

    If you read FiveThirtyEight.com, there is no way to assess the validity of his arguments unless you understand the math. People on there were simply assuming his math was right and that he was some kind of all-knowing oracle. So even if our idols change, I'm not sure if our underlying thought processes have really come so far......

    Well, you could understand how he scores the different poll companies without knowing how he puts it into his maths.

    Not to mention, Nate specializing in this sort of thing. As do other people. Other statisticians would be coming out of the works if Nate's math was wrong. An engineer built designed Nate's car. I'm sure he doesn't understand the process behind it. But that doesn't stop him from making a reasonable assertion that the engineer was doing the correct thing.

    You can't understand everything, but assuming Nate is right is not a faith based decision. He has been right in the past, no other people in his field have disagreed with him. Rationality will tell me there is a high likelihood he will be right again. Which incidentally is the exact work Nate does.

    YodaTuna on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Pony wrote: »

    For more on the whole "relativism vs. extremism" thing and my stance on it, there's a post on this very page where I expound a bit on my own practices and views vs. others and that should tell you a good bit more about how I think.

    If I read you correctly, the essence of what you are saying here seems to be that as a moderate, I'm essentially a harmless religious person (thanks!) but that my viewpoints on religious moderation don't really provide any valuable method for combating religious extremism.

    Which... they don't. You're right.

    I have nothing to offer you in this regard, other than encouragement to continue to combat religious fundamentalist activism and zealous extremism with facts and logic.

    In fact, I would even consider myself your ally in this regard! I'm not fan of extremism. Makes the rest of us look bad, after all!

    Attempting to use such methods on me personally will be met with shrugging resignation, as as moderate but nonetheless passionate religious practitioner, it's not really of any great importance to substantiate to you the factual nature of what I believe.

    After all, I'm not asking you to believe in it or asserting it is factually correct!

    I'm fine with this, strangely enough. I'm not a militant atheist because pushing away religious moderates is the exact opposite of what the movement should be doing. The ultimate goal of the atheist movement should be, imho, creating a better world through the rigorous application of reason. Working with religious moderates seems like the best course of action.

    In any case, if you have no interest in combating religious extremism, there's no reason why anyone should force you to do so. In fact, if you lived in Chicago, I'd invite you over to my non-religiious Shabbat dinner on Friday night :lol: Jews got some parts of the good life right. Lots of food, drink, and friends, for no apparent reason other than the end of the week!

    sanstodo on
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Where the hell did original sin come from, anyway? It doesn't exist at all in Judaism.


    EDIT - Never mind, see Couscous's answer.

    Brian888 on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    You know, it's been pointed out repeatedly to you in this thread that religion, in particular the christian religion has been a continually changing landscape since it's inception. If you refuse to apply historical context to your interpretations of the bible, you can't use the argument of "Some stuff in the old testament is really f'd up" to prove that religion is a farce.
    Invoking the word "context" does not magically make the lines in question disappear. I always get confused when people think this kind of argument works.

    I mean, the "context" of the line is explicit. God doesn't want the Canaanites to influence the Hebrews. He wants the Hebrews' culture to remain pure. So he orders the Hebrews to kill everyone around them.

    Except when you figure the main adherents of this fairly new religion were wandering desert tribes and had a chip on their shoulder. I'm not saying that edict is right, but I'm also not reading the bible literally like you, in fact I would argue one cannot realistically do so since so much of it runs into conflicts with other parts of it.

    It's a valid question, I'm not arguing that, but you seem to be unwilling to listen to any answer as to why such edicts from god exist in the old testament, nor have you proffered any good reason as to why the new testament is rendered an invalid text because god was a jerk in the old testament.

    Dark_Side on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Where the hell did original sin come from, anyway? It doesn't exist at all in Judaism.
    The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists mostly dealt with topics other than original sin.[2] The doctrine of original sin was first developed in second-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism.[2] The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] It was in the West that precise definition of the doctrine arose.[2] Augustine of Hippo taught that original sin was transmitted through the concupiscence (roughly, lust) that accompanied sexual reproduction, weakening the will and making humanity a massa damnata[2] (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all human beings inherit. As sinners, human beings are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[12]
    Fucking Church fathers.

    Couscous on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    tyrion wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    What is the evidence for this? (Suitably sufficient enough to back up such a incredibly broad claim.)

    OH NO!

    A TRAP CARD!

    :D

    Besides, he was ignoring the whole point, which was that religious belief is not inherently dangerous. Some extremists go nutso and kill people, sure, but they're...um... nutso.

    Besides, there are plenty of atheists who killed a whole bunch of people too. Stalin comes to mind. Should we outlaw atheism because it's dangerous?

    joshofalltrades on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Where the hell did original sin come from, anyway? It doesn't exist at all in Judaism.
    I've never really studied the history of Christianity past the first century so I really couldn't tell you.

    EDIT: Not really beat'd because I didn't have answer, but...

    Duffel on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    You know, when I was a kid I wondered why we were still following all these old rules when the world had changed so much - why didn't God tell us what we should do? He did it for thousands of years, all the time from Adam to Jesus, speaking to people all the time, why stop?
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Instead of all that nitpicking, can't we all just agree that religious faith in itself is an irrational and dangerous thing?

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    No, it's not. Not if it doesn't hurt anyone. I believe that there is life in space. It's very, very likely in my mind, but there still isn't proof to that. Why is it wrong for me to do this?

    Now, if I started hating gays because I believed that's what Quaxrasians with their strictly controlled 29-sex caste system wanted me to do so...

    DarkCrawler on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »

    For more on the whole "relativism vs. extremism" thing and my stance on it, there's a post on this very page where I expound a bit on my own practices and views vs. others and that should tell you a good bit more about how I think.

    If I read you correctly, the essence of what you are saying here seems to be that as a moderate, I'm essentially a harmless religious person (thanks!) but that my viewpoints on religious moderation don't really provide any valuable method for combating religious extremism.

    Which... they don't. You're right.

    I have nothing to offer you in this regard, other than encouragement to continue to combat religious fundamentalist activism and zealous extremism with facts and logic.

    In fact, I would even consider myself your ally in this regard! I'm not fan of extremism. Makes the rest of us look bad, after all!

    Attempting to use such methods on me personally will be met with shrugging resignation, as as moderate but nonetheless passionate religious practitioner, it's not really of any great importance to substantiate to you the factual nature of what I believe.

    After all, I'm not asking you to believe in it or asserting it is factually correct!

    I'm fine with this, strangely enough. I'm not a militant atheist because pushing away religious moderates is the exact opposite of what the movement should be doing. The ultimate goal of the atheist movement should be, imho, creating a better world through the rigorous application of reason. Working with religious moderates seems like the best course of action.

    In any case, if you have no interest in combating religious extremism, there's no reason why anyone should force you to do so. In fact, if you lived in Chicago, I'd invite you over to my non-religiious Shabbat dinner on Friday night :lol: Jews got some parts of the good life right. Lots of food, drink, and friends, for no apparent reason other than the end of the week!

    Rad.

    (My grandma on my momma's side is Jewish, which technically makes me Jewish, and I grew up practicing Jewish cultural traditions which pretty consist of pretexts for family feats, something I totally approve of and continue to practice!)

    Pony on
  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I have to say this is pretty truth, as I see very few in church my age every Sunday.

    maximumzero on
    FU7kFbw.png
    Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Besides, there are plenty of atheists who killed a whole bunch of people too. Stalin comes to mind. Should we outlaw atheism because it's dangerous?
    You're not actually serious, right? Right?

    I mean, Stalin didn't do it in the Holy Name Of There-Is-No-God. He did it in the name of Mother Russia, the Party, the Glorious Soviet Union.

    Well, OK, he did it out of paranoia and a desire for power. But atheism wasn't his primary excuse to hide behind.

    WotanAnubis on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    You know, when I was a kid I wondered why we were still following all these old rules when the world had changed so much - why didn't God tell us what we should do? He did it for thousands of years, all the time from Adam to Jesus, speaking to people all the time, why stop?
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Instead of all that nitpicking, can't we all just agree that religious faith in itself is an irrational and dangerous thing?

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    No, it's not. Not if it doesn't hurt anyone. I believe that there is life in space. It's very, very likely in my mind, but there still isn't proof to that. Why is it wrong for me to do this?

    Now, if I started hating gays because I believed that's what Quaxrasians with their strictly controlled 29-sex caste system wanted me to do so...

    Your belief in aliens wounds me deeply.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Except when you figure the main adherents of this fairly new religion were wandering desert tribes and had a chip on their shoulder. I'm not saying that edict is right, but I'm also not reading the bible literally like you, in fact I would argue one cannot realistically do so since so much of it runs into conflicts with other parts of it.

    It's a valid question, I'm not arguing that, but you seem to be unwilling to listen to any answer as to why such edicts from god exist in the old testament, nor have you proffered any good reason as to why the new testament is rendered an invalid text because god was a jerk in the old testament.


    Well, if you say that the genocide edicts aren't really a problem because the Bible shouldn't be read literally, you've invalidated the theological underpinnings of the NT. If the Bible shouldn't be read literally, there's no reason to believe in the Resurrection, which is the central rock on which most kinds of Christianity are built.

    Brian888 on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Besides, there are plenty of atheists who killed a whole bunch of people too. Stalin comes to mind. Should we outlaw atheism because it's dangerous?
    You're not actually serious, right? Right?

    I mean, Stalin didn't do it in the Holy Name Of There-Is-No-God. He did it in the name of Mother Russia, the Party, the Glorious Soviet Union.

    Well, OK, he did it out of paranoia and a desire for power. But atheism wasn't his primary excuse to hide behind.

    Who cares? Are you saying that all Christians who do bad things hide behind Jesus? Some Christians who do bad things just happen to be Christian, and some atheists who do bad things just happen to be atheists.

    joshofalltrades on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    Rad.

    (My grandma on my momma's side is Jewish, which technically makes me Jewish, and I grew up practicing Jewish cultural traditions which pretty consist of pretexts for family feats, something I totally approve of and continue to practice!)
    I've heard Purim gets pretty crazy in Israel...

    Duffel on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    You know, when I was a kid I wondered why we were still following all these old rules when the world had changed so much - why didn't God tell us what we should do? He did it for thousands of years, all the time from Adam to Jesus, speaking to people all the time, why stop?
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Instead of all that nitpicking, can't we all just agree that religious faith in itself is an irrational and dangerous thing?

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

    No, it's not. Not if it doesn't hurt anyone. I believe that there is life in space. It's very, very likely in my mind, but there still isn't proof to that. Why is it wrong for me to do this?

    Now, if I started hating gays because I believed that's what Quaxrasians with their strictly controlled 29-sex caste system wanted me to do so...

    And this, my friends, is essentially the crux of the difference between religious moderates and religious extremists.

    Pony on
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Science would also make a pretty poor religion, always changing its stance on things every few decades and requiring a large amount of money to fund.

    Oh wait...

    Religion, like anything in this world, isn't good or evil, and is something that some people convince themselves that they need while others can wholly do without. Much like anything in this world there is no absolute truth about it. It's a sham if you don't believe in it...much like anything else you don't believe in.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Brian888 wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Brian888 wrote: »
    God comes from the Conan school of international relations.

    Man, that's how shit got DONE back in the day.
    Back in the day, maybe.

    But, you know, isn't it about time for an update?

    Oh I just can't help myself.

    See: New Testament.

    That just made things worse with eternal hellfire.


    True dat. God at the most just killed you in the OT. Jesus lets you know that things are much, much worse in the NT.

    Motherfucking Revelations D:

    DarkCrawler on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    You're not actually serious, right? Right?

    I mean, Stalin didn't do it in the Holy Name Of There-Is-No-God. He did it in the name of Mother Russia, the Party, the Glorious Soviet Union.

    Well, OK, he did it out of paranoia and a desire for power. But atheism wasn't his primary excuse to hide behind.
    He did outlaw and persecute religious people on the grounds that they were religious, and he was pretty anti-semitic too, so... yeah.

    Also, the way religious people are treated in China today is pretty abhorrent as well.

    Duffel on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Where the hell did original sin come from, anyway? It doesn't exist at all in Judaism.
    The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists mostly dealt with topics other than original sin.[2] The doctrine of original sin was first developed in second-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism.[2] The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] It was in the West that precise definition of the doctrine arose.[2] Augustine of Hippo taught that original sin was transmitted through the concupiscence (roughly, lust) that accompanied sexual reproduction, weakening the will and making humanity a massa damnata[2] (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all human beings inherit. As sinners, human beings are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[12]
    Fucking Church fathers.

    Same with Calvinism, as to being invented by a crazy theologian, which apparently is starting to see a small revival in the states. Though I can't figure out how you manage to get people to join a church that tells you you're going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it.

    Dark_Side on
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Besides, there are plenty of atheists who killed a whole bunch of people too. Stalin comes to mind. Should we outlaw atheism because it's dangerous?
    You're not actually serious, right? Right?

    I mean, Stalin didn't do it in the Holy Name Of There-Is-No-God. He did it in the name of Mother Russia, the Party, the Glorious Soviet Union.

    Well, OK, he did it out of paranoia and a desire for power. But atheism wasn't his primary excuse to hide behind.

    Who cares? Are you saying that all Christians who do bad things hide behind Jesus? Some Christians who do bad things just happen to be Christian, and some atheists who do bad things just happen to be atheists.
    But Christians who do bad things sometimes do so In The Name Of God.

    Atheist who do bad things hardly ever do so In The Name Of There-Is-No-God.

    EDIT:
    He did outlaw and persecute religious people on the grounds that they were religious, and he was pretty anti-semitic too, so... yeah.

    Also, the way religious people are treated in China today is pretty abhorrent as well.
    Well, yeah, religions are a threat to totalitarian states. The priests might say things the Party doesn't agree with and priests have influence over people.

    So you need to control those priests for the sake of your own power.

    So I'm not sure atheistic zeal is behind that persecution.

    WotanAnubis on
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I have to say this is pretty truth, as I see very few in church my age every Sunday.

    Not only does this article appear to ring true in my personal experience, it applies to me personally!

    I was raised Catholic, with a smattering of Jewish cultural practices from my mother's mother.

    I never felt comfortable with Catholicism, as either a religious practice or institution.

    As I grew older, I eventually found myself deviating away from Catholicism, going through a period of agnostic exploration of alternate religious faiths and secular philosophies, before arriving on something that, for my own reasons, spoke to me as correct for me.

    So, the article's idea of "young people who aren't going to Church but would still probably be religious people if they didn't like the institution" generally applies to my own personal experience with religion.

    Pony on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    You're not actually serious, right? Right?

    I mean, Stalin didn't do it in the Holy Name Of There-Is-No-God. He did it in the name of Mother Russia, the Party, the Glorious Soviet Union.

    Well, OK, he did it out of paranoia and a desire for power. But atheism wasn't his primary excuse to hide behind.
    He did outlaw and persecute religious people on the grounds that they were religious, and he was pretty anti-semitic too, so... yeah.

    Also, the way religious people are treated in China today is pretty abhorrent as well.

    In both cases that is because religious people posed a threat to The State, another place where people got their orders from instead of the all-controlling all-powerful Party.

    They did that to other political parties too. Sometimes other countries.

    The belief in god or gods never had anything to do with it.

    DarkCrawler on
This discussion has been closed.