RELIGION DISCUSSION THREAD

[Swabs]

talk about being hypocritical.

Hypocritical? I said that religion on general should stay out of music, I didn't just mean Christianity.

I find all this Satanism = Metal shit just as annoying and unecessary as you do. Which is why I particualarly hate the lyrics of bands such as Dimmu Borgir (although the music I do like, they're not real satanists anyway )

Satanism in music is just as useless as Christianity in music, along with all other religions.

If a Christian band only ever plays in a church/christian radio, then thats fine by me. But I would be disgusted if one got played on a generic radio station.

 

[spirit crusher]

You know, any more, I think I see more anti-Christian/religion folks trying to force their non-beliefs and opinions down other people's throats way more than I see any Christian folk trying to "convert" and put down non-believers - talk about being hypocritical.

that's the beauty of choice, if you don't want religion in your music, don't listen to band's who do so! Same reason I avoid the fanatical satanic junk in the music I listen to. I don't care that they recorded it, their choice, but I don't have to listen to it so whatever.

Live and let live.

This, Deron, is a thread dedicated to the opinions of posters on religion. Given any situation other than a discussion like this I keep all my antireligious banter to myself, unless the situation calls for it. From what I see of Christians, they are unable to do so. I find the fish bumper stickers and crucifixes that people wear to be quite offensive, these symbols represent countless persecutions, lies. murders and genocides that have happened over a two thousand year period. Adding these symbols to music is just an insult to the instruments that are played. So what you might see as completely acceptable when it comes to showing/proving your faith, others might take as offense.

Its come to the point where I can't hear a man preach about god without getting pissed off to the point of wanting to shout out to everyone that they are sheep and should learn to think for themselves.

Even at funerals.
Even at weddings.

But I don't, I keep it to myself.

 

[Cofee_Annihilator]

Sometime i feel ashamed to be baptised


http://www.jesuswouldbeashamedofyou.com/

 

[Swabs]

http://www.jesuswouldbeashamedofyou.com/

That makes me sick

 

[MetalAges]

Hypocritical? I said that religion on general should stay out of music, I didn't just mean Christianity.

...But I would be disgusted if one got played on a generic radio station.

Fair enough (my comment was not directed in whole at you by the way). FYI - I have heard many times a Christian band has played on regular radio. I guess the main thing is, not all Christian music is constantly putting Jesus' name in every lyric. A lot of times it's simply a positive themed song in one way or another, not that that makes it "Christian".

Sometime i feel ashamed to be baptised


http://www.jesuswouldbeashamedofyou.com/

I hear ya! Those are the radicals I refer to.

 

[Nerve]

Why not just make a normal metal band? Does it have to spread christian lies throughout the music industry?

Religion should stay out of music.

STRYPER.

 

[RiderOfJustice]

Crusher, im not trying to fucking kiss your ass here but before now, after reading all your posts you brought something into the light of day. I used to think christians who don't push there beliefs on anyone and practice quietly didn't do any harm whatsoever but i get what your saying and it makes alot of sense. Without them the Extremists wouldnt be able to get a fucking word in edge-wise. Without one the other cannot exist. I am going to read that book you recomended. But you know if religion was gone, i am sure these fucked up people "Extremists" would find a different flag to sail their hate ship by.

 

[SteveAwesome]

But you know if religion was gone, i am sure these fucked up people "Extremists" would find a different flag to sail their hate ship by

WHICH ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING.

 

[RiderOfJustice]

Well at least it would be a world without religion

 

[shredtastical]

The first law of thermodynamics has never been proven.

Neither has been the second.

Or the three Newton's laws, which are the basis to classical mechanics.

but somehow we still softly land rovers on mars after traveling half a billion miles.

Or Maxwell's equations for classical electrodynamics.

Or Schrödinger's equation, in the realm of quantum mechanics.

Or the Schwarzschild's solution, of utmost importance to orbital mechanics, for Einstein's equations of general relativity.
Which have never been proven either.

have you heard of the experiment where the image of a star was bent and transposed on either side of a massive object as if the light image had been split and well, bent around something?

Or the Lorentz transformations for special relativity, while we're at it.

And finally, the Lagrange formula which pretty much covers up all physics regarding motion has never been proven.

And I didn't even scratch the surface of physics. I could literally spend the whole day here citing scientific formulas and works which have never, ever been proven. And will never, ever be.

just because we can't see gravity means it doesn't exist? we see it's affect on other masses. you can't disregard its products. its called logic. yeah i could shit around making wild claims and flippant remarks against everything in life, but that halts all scientific progress. For our natural world, such truths have proven themselves inherent. God has not proven himself necessarily inherent to our natural world. Do I have to touch the sun to know i'd be burned to a crisp? do i need to jump off a 50 story building just to prove that i'd die? we've never seen a black hole, yet we can tell by the behavior of massive objects, light, their affects on their surrounding environments, etc. that they exist. fact is at this point in our scientific knowledge, it is the most logical explanation we can come to. religion may have held that claim once, eons ago; however it cannot come close to that in the fact of today's scientific world. just because we cannot explain quantum mechanics does not mean we can just ignore/disregard it. tell that to your ipod, or any of the myriad of fruits that have spawned from quantum mechanics; the fact is, it works. we just don't know why. and that being the case, there is no way for mankind to be able to turn a blind eye from such postulates.

The reason why science is valid and religion isn't hasn't got anything to do with being proven or not proven. It's all about method[/b]. A scientist observes reality, comes up with a model based on a set of basic assumptions, derives mathematical expressions which explain some characteristics that can be observed, and compares the theoretical results of his model with the experimental results. If his model proves wrong, he goes back to the chalkboard and go over his initial assumptions to see what can be done to refine it. He then keeps trying until the theory matches the experiment within the accepted margin of error. If later discrepancies are found, the model can be corrected or thrown away in favour of a new one which can explain the observations.

Religion, on the other hand, observes reality, and makes up a set of assumptions, period. No method. And that's where atheism comes in, and says "Hey, you made that up".

how can you be so sensible and yet so utterly ignorant and clueless at the same time?

The choice of being an atheist has to do with the question: "Do we have any concrete evidence whatsoever to believe divine entities shaped this universe?". The answer is clearly negative(no, folks, the bible is not evidence. And quoting any versicles would be plain circular logic). So, why bother?

Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

/rant.

you just said yourself; logical procedures = science. prove to me how you can prove, beyond an iota of a doubt, that there is absolutely no presence of a divine being whatsoever. IMPOSSIBLE. just as its impossible to prove that he does exist. we cannot make such arrogant claims when we, as humans, are so clueless as to the true facts, whatever they may be.

WARNING LONG READ

This is why I am not a fan of religious moderates:


People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

you sir, i find to be similar to a religious extremist. you are aggressive, unbending, and happy to remain ignorant. show me some logical, substantial shred of proof that god does not exist, then you can make such wild assumptions. Nothing can affirm nor invalidate divine presence on this earth today. it may be argued that religion is the byproduct of human insecurity, yes, completely valid. it may also be argued religion was "created" to cover up human intellectual and/or perceptual deficiencies. however, the line is not black and white; lack of proof for does not prove that there is a lack thereof. the assumption is too large a leap. the gray area in this case, is very gray indeed, and should not be disregarded.

Well at least it would be a world without religion

don't be stupidly flippant.

 

[Leandro]

You DEFINITELY missed the point of my post. Read it over. Don't be an idiot. Go back to school.


And btw.


Prove to me how you can prove, beyond an iota of a doubt, that there is absolutely no presence of unicorns on the surface of mars, or icecream shops amidst the clouds of jupiter. IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Swabs]

Absense of evidence is somewhat evidence of absense for me.

 

[shredtastical]

You DEFINITELY missed the point of my post. Read it over. Don't be an idiot. Go back to school.


And btw.


Prove to me how you can prove, beyond an iota of a doubt, that there is absolutely no presence of unicorns on the surface of mars, or icecream shops amidst the clouds of jupiter. IMPOSSIBLE.

precisely. you actually think you can tell me there is absolutely no other intelligent life forms in the universe because they haven't been proven to exist? they also haven't been disproven to exist. when scientists observe planets for intelligent life, they test for methane; the presence of which could indicate life, however, the absence of which does not prove absence of all sentient life. same principle.

and yes, i like your point. the process. however i don't like how you established your point. don't be fucking condescending with me, are you incapable of conversing with people without asserting your self-proclaimed superiority?

 

[shredtastical]

Absense of evidence is somewhat evidence of absense for me.

pretty damn ignorant

 

[Swabs]

pretty damn ignorant

Stop being such a condescending prick.

A complete absense of any evidence pointing towards the existance of a god would mean that choosing to believe there is a god would be a completely illogical thing to do. "Hmm there's no bridge across that canyon... But there might be one! lets walk across it"

Christ, just think with common sense.

 

[Leandro]

I'm arguing the same point with you in two threads, and you still don't seem to get it, so yeah.

 

[spirit crusher]

you sir, i find to be similar to a religious extremist. you are aggressive, unbending, and happy to remain ignorant. show me some logical, substantial shred of proof that god does not exist, then you can make such wild assumptions. Nothing can affirm nor invalidate divine presence on this earth today. it may be argued that religion is the byproduct of human insecurity, yes, completely valid. it may also be argued religion was "created" to cover up human intellectual and/or perceptual deficiencies. however, the line is not black and white; lack of proof for does not prove that there is a lack thereof. the assumption is too large a leap. the gray area in this case, is very gray indeed, and should not be disregarded.

Youre right, my views are quite extreme only because they are "socially unacceptable". 300 Years ago, I would have been tortured to my death for my beliefs.

However youll never see me blowing up a building or preaching "morals" to anyone. I just try to prove religion wrong with EVERY POSSIBLE logical point I can make. Also you have apparently skipped over the last few posts I've made where I've made it abundantly clear that my anti-religious banter is not brought up unless its asked of me or under a controlled debate setting. Find a religious extremist who can do that. So kindly sit on it and rotate buddy.

If your family is murdered in an attack similar to 9/11 then you will understand my point of view.


Do you believe in fairies?
No, of course you don't.
Can you disprove their existence?
No, you can't, you just know they don't exist.

Change fairies to god and add in the countless hypocrisy that religion has provided over the thousands of years of its existence and that is proof enough that god does not exist.

 

[spirit crusher]

WHICH ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING.

Lack of religion would accomplish a world wide humanist unity. Something that has never been felt before by man, so it would accomplish something; a general understanding of everyone around you. Also Rider, you're right about one thing, terrorism would still occur, however these extremists would not exist, therefore their banner would not fly under a different cause, because the banner would cease to exist when religion would cease to exist. Which would minimalise most terrorist cases, considering the only ones you ever hear about on the news are 99% religious based.

Point and case.

 

[shredtastical]

Lack of religion would accomplish a world wide humanist unity. Something that has never been felt before by man, so it would accomplish something; a general understanding of everyone around you.

Also Rider, you're right about one thing, terrorism would still occur, however these extremists would not exist, therefore their banner would not fly under a different cause, because the banner would cease to exist when religion would cease to exist. Which would minimalise most terrorist cases, considering the only ones you ever hear about on the news are 99% religious based.

Point and case.

it'd be nice if everything always worked out as planned, however people don't work like that. do i misunderstand that you believe people will actually ban together under some common belief with the absence of religion? that will never happen. people never agree on anything, there are extremists in every group.

and i say you are an extremist in the sense that all you are interested in for this discussion are your own rants, and you do not listen to anyone else's arguments; you are close minded, which is exactly what makes religion so hypocritical. you refuse anyone else's logic other than your own. you act as if you are enlightened to the truths of the world, and stand completely steadfast content to reiterate yourself over and over, even in the face of rationality. however much you opened yourself to logic before (rationality), you now act as if there is nothing left for you to glean.

 

[shredtastical]

Stop being such a condescending prick.

A complete absense of any evidence pointing towards the existance of a god would mean that choosing to believe there is a god would be a completely illogical thing to do. "Hmm there's no bridge across that canyon... But there might be one! lets walk across it"

Christ, just think with common sense.

i forget which thread i posted this in.

when scientists look for intelligent life forms, one of the first tests they run is for methane. most life forms on earth expel methane. the presence of which, in a planet's atmosphere, may hint to life forms similar to use. however, the absence of which cannot in any way, shape, nor form, define the absence of life forms dissimilar in composition to what we know to be life on earth. the same principle applies here.

I'm arguing the same point with you in two threads, and you still don't seem to get it, so yeah.

because, i say it again; you hold your own opinions as your own gospel, which is fine, however, you are completely close-minded to what anyone else has to offer. and, you also seem to be too full of yourself with your (poorly) self-proclaimed, intellectual superiority, and patronizing admonishments.