Leon2793's forum posts

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="mephie25"]

rawsavon



I stated the difference between physically attacking and challenging again, this is semantics which I am not concerned with. I am free to challenge your beliefs you are not exempt, that was my point. I see you seem to have resorted to arguing ad hominem. Yes you may record acts of altruism as a cause of religion but altruism does not always have a religious cause. Many, many awful actions are carried out by religious cause and this is but one of my qualms with it.Never are awful acts carried out by cause of atheism.

1. I just used what you wrote…I can only work with what you give me…you said you were free to attack and inflame…in the broadest sense we are all free to do as we wish, but there are consequences for said actions

2. Altruism had many roots…one of which is religion…you are correct
-but many times religion is the cause…religion does a great deal of good in the world (as well as evil…just like everything else)

3. You say that "Never are awful acts carried out by cause of atheism"

But Atheism is defined as:
In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
-so any act without a deity as the cause, would be rooted in atheism (both good and bad)

4. I was interested to see your comments on the last part of my last post…I was afraid you would take it as an attack instead of an observation…but you did not say anything about it



I appreciate the ordered response. We may disregard Number one then. I see conflicts and ill created by religion as unnecessary and very avoidable. To fully tell you my justifications for Number two I'd have to go into an incredible amount of detail. I'm a little irked to do that considering I've had two obstinate Jehovah's Witnesses around today.I'm in almost entire agreement with Hitchens so I ask you to consult his books condemning organised religion. If you're so for challenging your beliefs do so with anything produced by Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. I'm sure you see them as a more reliable and venerable figures than I.Number Three is simply inductive reasoning.No I do not have any insecurities or a personal hatred of God. I'm passionate on this issue and that may be mistaken for very negative traits. I disregarded most of it as it was attacking ad hominem.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

Challenge/attack/question it seems the same to me. I am not imposing or infringing at all and my attack is not incited by hatred. What is the difference? I am doing the person no physical harm. If I cause this person mental harm that is unfortunate but you still cannot inhibit my speech because of this. My statement "Religion poisons everything" is not just opinion, I can justify it. It is a bold statement I know, however, there are so many accounts of Religion causing harm in our world. It is incredibly totalitarian.

mephie25

Your quote:
"We are free to attack and inflame. You cannot tell us "you cannot challenge my faith". Some of us are anything but happy that people have faith."

You said that you are free to attack people…your words not mine.
If you are not smart enough to know the difference between attacking someone and asking them a question, than there is no further point in us talking.
-However, I think that you are perfectly aware of the difference

You are free to do as you choose in this world.
No one can limit you, but there are consequences for every action you take…free speech is not really free…there are consequences for saying and doing certain things

I can find just as many things to support my "bold" statement as you can for yours
-for every "holy' war there are countless acts of altruism…we would be in an endless cycle…so it is like I said: an opinion that cannot be proved.

IMO…you just sound young, inexperienced, and angry at God...something that you should resolve internally before extolling your beliefs externally.
-in other words, people need to be clear on what they believe before they question and accost others for theirs...but this is just my opinion and not one shared by many
-I just think you need to figure out exactly what you believe (it does not sound like you do), before you attack others' beliefs



I stated the difference between physically attacking and challenging again, this is semantics which I am not concerned with. I am free to challenge your beliefs you are not exempt, that was my point. I see you seem to have resorted to arguing ad hominem. Yes you may record acts of altruism as a cause of religion but altruism does not always have a religious cause. Many, many awful actions are carried out by religious cause and this is but one of my qualms with it. Never are awful acts carried out by cause of atheism.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Poison, eh? Seems to be taking its sweet time killing us.

PannicAtack



Could you actually respond to my post rather than arguing semantics?

You're the one making hyperbole.



Yes it is an exaggerated and bold statement. You responded to it and I asked why you want to argue semantics. I merely implored whether you could respond to my question. I don't understand your last post. I didn't accuse you of using hyperbole.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]

[Well, not believing in God is not the same as believing that God does not exist. I don't believe in God, but I don't presume to assert the belief that He does not exist.

LJS9502_basic

Then if you allow he may exist...how can you deny the existence. Seems rather contradictory.



It depends which God you're talking about. If it is the Biblical one he is to me even more unlikely. Yes, a creator may exist but the revelations of Science seem to contradict him and all conclusions of Reason do not require his invocation. Thus I point to the "Flying spaghetti monster" analogy. I cannot prove/disprove many things and many Gods. Why is the Biblical God the most logical? I do not deny, but I can have a personal certainty. However, my original position is the most humble and that is; I will believe if evidence is presented, I don't think this evidence will be presented. This is not agnosticism, to me, if you do not *believe* you are an atheist.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]


What is my belief?

LJS9502_basic

"I am a non-believerLeon2793

Being a non believer of God means your belief is that God does not exist. Thus...you stated your belief in the OP. Glad to help.:)



Yes, but if evidence was provided tomorrow, I would believe. My belief or non-belief is not absolute. I cannot confirm that a creator does not exist; I have no belief. However, I *think* he is not at all likely.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

1. I believe that people SHOULD question their OWN faith...for their own benefit
BUT
It is not your place to question anyone else's faith...discuss, talk about, explain YES

2. People carry out awful acts regardless.
-religion is just used as an excuse
-people invade, take, steal, plunder because they want stuff...the crusades were about riches (they did not go places with nothing to offer)
My point is that if not religion, countries would just use something else (the love of the crown, whatever)
GREED is the root, not religion (just the excuse used)

3. There will never be "proof"...that is the point of a faith based religion

4. There is nothing wrong with a. not believing and b. thinking that the world would be better if no one did
-just like I think the world would be a better place if all believed
However
It is wrong to attack and inflame...It is not your place (or mine) to dictate or attack

Just because you do not agree, does not make something wrong
-people have a RIGHT tobelieve as they please, as long as they do not infringe on others' rights

Where you see religion holding the world back, I see it holding it together...to each their own

rawsavon



So I cannot question your beliefs? If you do not want me to "infringe" do not listen. You want to restrict my behaviour, my speech so it is according with you? I also doubt anyone has ever fought for atheism. Religion is a cause in many conflicts, there may be other motives but Religion poisons everything, it aggravates these situations.

You have the right to question others (questioning and discussion are great and lead to learning about others and self), but you do not have the right to attack...there is a difference
-free speech/behavior is not what you make it out to be...you are not free to infringe upon others rights

Your statement about "Religion poisons everything, it aggravates these situations" is just opinion...just as it is my opinion that "Where you see religion holding the world back, I see it holding it together"...
-we can discuss it, but prove nothing



Challenge/attack/question it seems the same to me. I am not imposing or infringing at all and my attack is not incited by hatred. What is the difference? I am doing the person no physical harm. If I cause this person mental harm that is unfortunate but you still cannot inhibit my speech because of this. My statement "Religion poisons everything" is not just opinion, I can justify it. It is a bold statement I know, however, there are so many accounts of Religion causing harm in our world. It is incredibly totalitarian.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] So you're intolerant?

PannicAtack



I guess I may be. If unhappiness with something is synonymous with intolerance. You may be unhappy with our current Labour government, are you intolerant of it? Religion is given a special privilege in society. I can attack your political views but not your religious ones. It is nonsense. I think that religion poisons everything and I doubt many would believe if there was no organised religion.

Poison, eh? Seems to be taking its sweet time killing us.



Could you actually respond to my post rather than arguing semantics?

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I mean those making the threads are presenting their personal beliefs to others.....

LJS9502_basic



I don't have a belief; that is my point. It is one's duty to present me with evidence if they have a theory not the other way around. That's if you were talking about my thread, rather than the bolder ones currently up.

You stated your belief in the OP dude.....:|



What is my belief?

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="curono"]Religion is not based of facts or evidence, it is based upon faith. THAT IS THE CORNERSTONE OFRELIGION. If you try to prove or disprove you are going on the wrong side. Think of it as follow: Prove me that chocolate is tasty. You may eat as much chocolate as you can to prove that chocolate is tasty. You can make a survey, but if you dont like it, that is it. There is no way around. You may like it eventually, but if you positively dislike chocolate there is no proof that can tell you otherwise. Religion is like that. Either you believe or you dont. It is not proof based knowledge.curono



I'm fully aware of the nature of religion but these two seemed to be contesting that by quoting so called "proofs" and still proclaiming a faith. One of these "proofs" was the "prophecies" which are apparently all coming true. :/

Problem is that if they are proofs then Religion becomes a knowledge. That comes extremely well in Constantine (you may say it is a dumb movie but has an extremely valid point):

John knows and tells Gabriel that he believes in god and all that Gabriel answers him: No, you know, it is different.

So instead of having a religion you have a dogmatic knowledge. People will try to base their faith upon something. It is as valid as stating why do you like rap. You may say it is good, the power of the lyrics or the rythm. The case is that you are describinghow rap is, not why you like it.There may be other music genres which are good but you are not into.We, as humans tend to "prove why" when there may not be a real reason behind it.



We are innately inquisitive this way. We want to know "Why". Children persistently ask "why is this so", "why is that so". I do not think that people can't bear an answer like "there is no reason". I'm saying it is more difficult to accept this.

Avatar image for Leon2793
Leon2793

241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Leon2793
Member since 2008 • 241 Posts

[QUOTE="Leon2793"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'd say the quote should be applied to the thread creators myself....LJS9502_basic



What do you mean by that?

I mean those making the threads are presenting their personal beliefs to others.....



I don't have a belief; that is my point. It is one's duty to present me with evidence if they have a theory not the other way around. That's if you were talking about my thread, rather than the bolder ones currently up.