• Gallop poll: 32% of Americans are non-religious.
    474 replies, posted
[QUOTE=timmyvos;35395274]*cough* Soviet Russia *cough*.[/QUOTE] The Soviet Union and it's satellites were full of religious people, didn't help that Stalin was insane though. Hell, Gorbachev was a orthodox Christian.
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395297]Common sense? You can't just pick and choose in a religious book like the Bible. It's very clear that it means everything it says and you should take all of it to heart. You're not even following the Bible at that point; you're just agreeing with some ideas and rolling with it. Things like this are all or nothing.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's not like you can [I]interpret[/I] a text, or anything. Nope, clearly a fucking talking snake convinced a woman to eat an apple and that resulted in the end of a utopia. You know nothing of religious education, you're just as ignorant as the people you claim to be ignorant.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395334]"people can't choose what parts of the bible they want to believe in and still be christians! i'm zally and i define how people identify themselves with a religion!!11!" Yet people do this and it's acceptable. Why the fuck are you even arguing otherwise. Are you the one who chooses how people can and cannot pick a religion?[/QUOTE] You're not even Christian at that point. You can't say you agree with Marxism and then pick and choose parts of it (That was a god awful example). It's all or nothing. Just say you agree with parts of it and not everything. Most people I know who say they believe in the Bible pick and choose the parts that suit their life and not the parts that don't. That's just to convenience themselves.
[QUOTE=download;35395331]Attrocites committed by the Soviet Union were committed in the name of Communism, not Atheism. Unlike the Crusades, or 9/11, or Waco, or Jones Town[/QUOTE] That's not what I meant. Soviet Russia was de jure atheist and it really wasn't the most advanced or civilised nation.
[QUOTE=scout1;35395350]Yeah it's not like you can [I]interpret[/I] a text, or anything. Nope, clearly a fucking talking snake convinced a woman to eat an apple and that resulted in the end of a utopia. You know nothing of religious education, you're just as ignorant as the people you claim to be ignorant.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about interpreting, but rather picking parts. When it comes to the Old Testament, half of it is ignored and then the New Testament is hugged and loved. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=timmyvos;35395360]That's not what I meant. Soviet Russia was de jure atheist and it really wasn't the most advanced or civilised nation.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it wasn't atheist at all. The people weren't at the very least.
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395356]You're not even Christian at that point. You can't say you agree with Marxism and then pick and choose parts of it (That was a god awful example). It's all or nothing. Just say you agree with parts of it and not everything. Most people I know who say they believe in the Bible pick and choose the parts that suit their life and not the parts that don't. That's just to convenience themselves.[/QUOTE] Can you please tell me where it's defined that if you don't believe and practice everything in the bible, you aren't a christian anymore? I'm not really going to take your word on it, since you've already proven yourself to be an extremely ignorant person.
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395266]No they can't. We don't follow one doctrine. We just don't accept any doctrine. We're not a religion like you implied, dammit. We're a lack of one. Get it right. We decided not to follow faith. That's it. Some decide to believe in evolution, some decide to believe in the Big Bang, etc. We're not categorized by belief, but lack of one.[/QUOTE] In a way that just makes atheism more like every other religion. There are different degrees and ways of following it. There are thousands of branches of Christianity, I for one am a Christian and I believe in evolution. My point is: every faith, even the lack thereof, has bigoted zealots. Most people around here would insist otherwise but it's true, and you'd be better off NOT taking the Catholic church's advice and actually do something about your own lunatics rather than deny their existence.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395334]"people can't choose what parts of the bible they want to believe in and still be christians! i'm zally and i define how people identify themselves with a religion!!11!" Yet people do this and it's acceptable. Why the fuck are you even arguing otherwise. Are you the one who chooses how people can and cannot pick a religion?[/QUOTE] If you're going to pretend to take the moral high ground, can you stop immaturely attacking him and focus on what he's saying? He has a good point, if the religious book is supposed to be god's teachings but you're only going to believe part of it, doesn't that kind of undermine it? Of course this only applies to religions with a holy book with offensive teachings in it, but two of the most followed religions fit this do they not?
And Garik stop rating every single post in this thread useful.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395307]I know you like to believe that everyone who's religious is ignorant, but could you stop being ignorant yourself? There's hundreds of Christian churches who don't breach homophobic, racist, or sexist beliefs. Just because they identify themselves into a group which has many sects, doesn't mean they're all the same. And calling yourself a Christian doesn't automatically make you some racisti homophobe. Take your head out of your ass and read what you're typing, please.[/QUOTE] That's very true. Unfortunately, the all-accepting church on the corner of Main and 1st street gets less media attention then, say, the Westburo Baptist Church. The other unfortunate fact is that, as religious indoctrination (and general religious studies and upbringings) decline in the United States, the more extreme aspects of religion are bound to be more highlighted in the media.
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395356]You're not even Christian at that point. You can't say you agree with Marxism and then pick and choose parts of it (That was a god awful example). It's all or nothing. Just say you agree with parts of it and not everything. Most people I know who say they believe in the Bible pick and choose the parts that suit their life and not the parts that don't. That's just to convenience themselves.[/QUOTE] It's not all or nothing. That be the code for only the truest of Scotsman. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/r0OTJ.png[/IMG] Garik finds much promise in us, yes?
[QUOTE=Elspin;35395400]If you're going to pretend to take the moral high ground, can you stop immaturely attacking him and focus on what he's saying? He has a good point, if the religious book is supposed to be god's teachings but you're only going to believe part of it, doesn't that kind of undermine it? Of course this only applies to religions with a holy book with offensive teachings in it, but two of the most followed religions fit this do they not?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect[/url] Can you provide me a source for his ignorance now?
Meanwhile in Sweden: 98% are non-religious
Not to mention the point of this thread is about non-religious numbers rising. Not the numbers of followers for a specific religion declining. If you truly want to believe that those who pick and choose parts of the bible to believe in aren't Christians anymore, then fine. It doesn't change the fact that they're religious and most of them are tolerant of others.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395408][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect[/url] Can you provide me a source for his ignorance now?[/QUOTE] I think what they're trying to get at is not people disregarding portions of the bible, but rather significant portions of it. You can't honestly say Christianity and Christians today resemble what they were in biblical times. They would have called modern Christians slackers, heretics maybe. Damn it Garik.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395408][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect[/url] Can you provide me a source for his ignorance, now?[/QUOTE] You basically responded to somebody saying "Doesn't that undermine the belief if you only believe part of it" by saying "look, people believe only part of it". Yes, I am aware of that - I wasn't denying that people will pick and choose it, I'm asking what the point in picking and choosing part of a religious book if it's supposed to be teachings of a god? I mean if somebody said to me "Hi, our youth group is called health and murder! Our group revolves around healthy living, acceptance of other beliefs, and occasional sacrificial murder!" I would not say to myself "alright well I like the first two, sign me up and I won't do the last one", I'd not associate myself with them at all. I'm not trying to say I think people should follow religious books to a T, or that I think people who pick and choose are stupid. I just don't get it myself, or see the point in it.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395408][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect[/url] Can you provide me a source for his ignorance now?[/QUOTE] Good job defining sect. That doesn't make it any more correct. You're just throwing out a definition. Let's use the Bible for reference, shall we? 2 Timothy 4:2-4 "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. "
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395455]Good job defining sect. That doesn't make it any more correct. You're just throwing out a definition. Let's use the Bible for reference, shall we? 2 Timothy 4:2-4 "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. "[/QUOTE] Thread isn't even about whether or not people who believe in the bible 100% are a christian or not. Why did you even bring it up. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] None of it changes the fact that they're still religious
Oh my God now you're backing down. You can't argue and then back down when it's convenient for you. This is relevant since we're discussing picking/choosing and how religion affects the productivity of society. Or that's at least what it started off of. If it does affect productivity and reason of the society, then these statistics are relevant. If this didn't matter and all we were focusing on were the stats... Who cares? They're stats. It's what the stats mean, not the statistics itself.
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395479]Oh my God now you're backing down. You can't argue and then back down when it's convenient for you. This is relevant since we're discussing picking/choosing and how religion affects the productivity of society. Or that's at least what it started off of. If it does affect productivity and reason of the society, then these statistics are relevant. If this didn't matter and all we were focusing on were the stats... Who cares? They're stats. It's what the stats mean, not the statistics itself.[/QUOTE] Clearly I'm backing down for trying to get the thread back on topic. You came into the thread and immediately started derailing it. Instead of providing any counterargument as to why religion is actually harmful, you instead start saying that people who don't believe in their bible fully (or any other doctrine) can't be Christians (or whatever religion). Why don't you actually contribute to what the OP was about and tell us why religious people are so bad? Not a single religion, not just the extremists, but everybody who's religious.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395499]Clearly I'm backing down for trying to get the thread back on topic. You came into the thread and immediately started derailing it. Instead of providing any counterargument as to why religion is actually harmful, you instead start saying that people who don't believe in their bible fully (or any other doctrine) can't be Christians (or whatever religion). Why don't you actually contribute to what the OP was about and tell us why religious people are so bad? Not a single religion, not just the extremists, but everybody who's religious.[/QUOTE] Except I did. [quote]I'm also going to go ahead and say that it does. When you believe in something with lack of evidence, you're condoning faith and lack of proof. That stunts scientific progress at the very least. Not to mention evolution is still, for whatever reason, not completely accepted in America. [/quote] I don't know what you're trying to argue. Asteroidrules tickles my fancy :)
Good.
[QUOTE=scout1;35395208]Yes because a people's religious beliefs are [I]clearly[/I] the determining factor for progress.[/QUOTE] Uh, yes? I'm not one to tell people that they are wrong without reason, but even so this means more people are more informed about the universe, and if that's not progress I don't know what is. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] and no, it might not be THE determining factor, but it's progress nonetheless
[QUOTE=Zally13;35395520]Except I did. I don't know what you're trying to argue. Asteroidrules tickles my fancy :)[/QUOTE] yet throughout history there have been advances in science thanks to scientists who also happened to be religious. And surely you must understand why they call it faith.
[QUOTE=Valdor;35395590]yet throughout history there have been advances in science thanks to scientists who also happened to be religious. And surely you must understand why they call it faith.[/QUOTE] In the past. Atheism wasn't nearly as common and Science didn't provide an alternative to religion until the early 20th century (maybe late 19th) with Darwin. That provided an alternative to God. Religion did help in the past with science, sure. There's no reason to be religious anymore. And yeah, faith is called faith because there's no evidence or proof. That's bullshit.
I'm not saying that [I]all [/I]religious people are dumb, dangerous and retrograde, but I can say I don't see many violent crime related US headlines that involve a non-christian as the attacker. Also, active, militant atheism can be just as bad as any other religion (see: r/atheism, some other atheist groups and anyone who ever says he's an atheist in public without anyone asking, ever.)
[QUOTE=Chrille;35395581]Uh, yes? I'm not one to tell people that they are wrong without reason, but even so this means more people are more informed about the universe, and if that's not progress I don't know what is. [editline]2nd April 2012[/editline] and no, it might not be THE determining factor, but it's progress nonetheless[/QUOTE] Religion and science are not mutually exclusive Why can't you understand this
[QUOTE=scout1;35395628]Religion and science are not mutually exclusive Why can't you understand this[/QUOTE] They're becoming more and more so. There's a reason 90% of the National Science Board (fuck I think that's what it's called) rejects the idea of God.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;35395615]I'm not saying that [I]all [/I]religious people are dumb, dangerous and retrograde, but I can say I don't see many violent crime related US headlines that involve a non-christian as the attacker.[/QUOTE] American news is more about entertainment. If the story doesn't have a twist, it won't sell. And most news stories i reaf on violent crime rarely mention religion at all..
[QUOTE=latin_geek;35395615]I'm not saying that [I]all [/I]religious people are dumb, dangerous and retrograde, but I can say I don't see many violent crime related US headlines that involve a non-christian as the attacker. Also, active, militant atheism can be just as bad as any other religion (see: r/atheism, some other atheist groups and anyone who ever says he's an atheist in public without anyone asking, ever.)[/QUOTE] I don't think religious people are stupid or insane. I believe their beliefs are.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.