Richard Dawkins backs plans for a bible in every school - Polidicks

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36137899]I mean that religion is why the Persian Empire was so chill. Their religion didn't call for holy war or destroying heathens. It called for you to live a just and peaceful life, and to let other people live a just and peaceful life.[/QUOTE] The Persian empire was still plenty violent with or without Zoroastrianism. Ever heard of Scaphism?

[QUOTE=Melkor;36137835]So were the Christians. At least Jainism doesn't advocate murder.[/QUOTE] Welcome to every single religion that's ever been sponsored by the state. Every man who thinks he has the right religious idea gets a hard-on for "holy acts" whether violent or non-violent, because it means they can do something to please their God(s).

[QUOTE=Melkor;36137925]The Persian empire was still plenty violent with or without Zoroastrianism. Ever heard of Scaphism?[/QUOTE] Brutal execution is pretty much on par with the time period. However, if you look at the Empire relative to its neighbors and predecessors, it was a beacon of tolerance and freedom. You could practice your own religion, continue your old customs, you even got to have your own traditional government, as long as it paid taxes to the Emperor.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36138011]Brutal execution is pretty much on par with the time period. However, if you look at the Empire relative to its neighbors and predecessors, it was a beacon of tolerance and freedom. You could practice your own religion, continue your old customs, you even got to have your own traditional government, as long as it paid taxes to the Emperor.[/QUOTE] That's true.

Zoroastrianism is fucking bomb. It was the only ancient philosophy I read first hand that did not do anything really weird or violent. The part about worshipping cows and death to those that kill cows was pretty odd though. They were close to India (Bactria I think) so it makes sense.

[QUOTE=person11;36138081]Zoroastrianism is fucking bomb. It was the only ancient philosophy I read first hand that did not do anything really weird or violent. The part about worshipping cows and death to those that kill cows was pretty odd though. They were close to India (Bactria I think) so it makes sense.[/QUOTE]Didn't they also say that a lot of evil from the world was the result of some guy fucking himself? [quote=Wiki]Zoroastrianism has been said to have a "hatred of male anal intercourse", reflected in at least one mythological tale. When [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahriman"]A[/URL]hriman, the "Spirit of Aridity and Death" and "Lord of Lies", sought to destroy the world, he engaged in self-sodomy. This homosexual self intercourse caused an "explosion of evil power" and resulted in the birth of a host of evil minion[/quote]

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;36138129]Didn't they also say that a lot of evil from the world was the result of some guy fucking himself?[/QUOTE] symbolically maybe ancient persian hard to translate

[QUOTE=Jad Hinto;36138129]Didn't they also say that a lot of evil from the world was the result of some guy fucking himself?[/QUOTE] It could be a mistranslation. It could also be true. Every religion has some weird stuff. "Another story says tea sprang from the eyelids of Bodhldharma, the first patriarch of Zen, called Daruma by the Japanese. He had sailed from India to China but once arrived he merely sat down facing a wall at Shaolin Temple and did not stir for nine years. During this marathon meditation the determined saint once drowsed off, so far forgetting himself that his eyes closed momentarily. Without hesitation he sliced off his eyelids to make sure they would never again close and interrupt his wakefulness. Where they fell the compassionate deity Quan Yin caused tea plants to grow to serve Bodhidharma and all who came after him as an aid on the path to enlightenment. Unbelievers suggest this story arose because the Japanese characters for tea leaf and eyelid are the same. " That's pretty weird, I would say. Any religion has weird stories, from gods nailing themselves to trees to gain the secrets of life(Norse), to titans eating their children so they could never threaten their rule(Greek), to talking serpents offering the secrets of knowledge to man(Abrahamic Religion). Like I said, ya gotta take the good with the bad.

[QUOTE=RobbL;36122449]Lankist also thinks The Troubles in Ireland were a religious conflict, so i'd take everything he says about history with a pinch of salt tbh[/QUOTE] As someone living in Scotland which has/had similar sectarian issues, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36142044]As someone living in Scotland which has/had similar sectarian issues, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Not this again. As someone who lives in Ireland's nearest neighbour and knows many people who were involved in the conflict I can say the same about you. You could interpret it as a religious conflict, but logically speaking it wasn't. No conflict of religious belief, ideals, or doctrine were directly involved. A religious conflict is one motivated by differences in what I just mentioned, but the troubles were mainly about differences in political, constitutional, and social ideals. I could go on for ages, but these quotes explain just about enough- [QUOTE]In the case of Northern Ireland, nationality, religion, and politics are so highly correlated that almost every person not born into a Catholic family is thus Protestant and therefore grows up to be a unionist. Every Irish child is born Catholic and will therefore grow up to be a nationalist. Because of this all of these words can be used interchangeably on either side; Protestant/British/unionist and Catholic/Irish/nationalist. The real issue with Northern Ireland was the partition, which caused a lot of conflict and a period of time which is commonly referred to as “The Troubles”. During the Troubles there was a myriad of violence between the two opposing sides. Terrorism was rampant and there were many riots and marches which ended in bloodshed. Northern Irish Catholics wanted to be a part of the Republic of Ireland or to be their own sovereign state; they did not, and still don’t, believe that the English had any genus of claim over Northern Ireland. The Protestants, on the other hand, wished to remain under British rule as it was beneficial to them. Under British rule, Protestants occupy the best jobs and get the best pay. Religion is really not even close to the issue in Northern Ireland, the root of the problem is land rights; who has the right to rule Northern Ireland? Both sides think that they are the best choice[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]David Kidd is native to Belfast, and remembers The Troubles well. "I've seen bombs go off. I've had guns pointed at me. I've had people hijack my car. I've had guns put in my mouth," he told CBN News. Kidd said the war really was not about religion, contrary to popular belief. "The conflict in Northern Ireland has always been described as a religious one," he added. "The tribal identities are religious, but the issue was about control of the land. It was about economic advantage. It wasn't about religious issues."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What is the main cause of all the trouble in Northern Ireland? Is religion a big part of it? The conflict in Northern Ireland is usually explained in terms of the different constitutional aspirations of the two main sections of the community in the region. Many Catholics consider themselves to be Irish and are Nationalist in political outlook, that is, they would like to see the whole (nation) island of Ireland reunited (and independent of Britain). Most Protestants consider themselves to be British and are Unionist in political outlook, that is, they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the (union of the) United Kingdom (UK) of Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. The correspondence between religion, culture, and political outlook is the result of a historical accident. During the 'plantation of Ulster' in the early 17th century the Scottish and English settlers, who moved to the north-east of Ireland to take ownership of confiscated lands, were Protestant and had strong cultural ties with England and Scotland. The native Irish who were forced from their land were Catholic and culturally Irish. Although religion was not the determining factor in the conflict between the people living in the region, it has a special significance as it was used as a marker to distinguish and discriminate between sections of the community. As a consequence of the plantation Protestants acquired land and wealth. Various pieces of legislation were introduced to reduce the status of Catholics. The inequalities between the two sections of the population persisted to the late 1960s and were the main cause of the civil rights movement that eventually led to the re-emergence of violent conflict.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RobbL;36143143]Not this again. As someone who lives in Ireland's nearest neighbour and knows many people who were involved in the conflict I can say the same about you. You could interpret it as a religious conflict, but logically speaking it wasn't. No conflict of religious belief, ideals, or doctrine were directly involved. A religious conflict is one motivated by differences in what I just mentioned, but the troubles were mainly about differences in political, constitutional, and social ideals. I could go on for ages, but these quotes explain just about enough-[/QUOTE] Yes, however the quotes of one man from Belfast, however informed he may be one way or the other, are not the end-all for determining that.

[QUOTE=Megafan;36143314]Yes, however the quotes of one man from Belfast, however informed he may be one way or the other, are not the end-all for determining that.[/QUOTE] Read the other quotes too, man

gotta give the bible points for creativity at least, angels looked fuckin scary and everybody who saw them more or less went crazy for the next hour or so [IMG]http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs26/i/2008/039/6/6/Uriel_by_One_Vox.jpg[/IMG] and that's the angel in charge of setting fire to shit, so he's basically the Pyro from TF2 if the Pyro had a really scary-looking hat on

[QUOTE=Cone;36147406]gotta give the bible points for creativity at least, angels looked fuckin scary and everybody who saw them more or less went crazy for the next hour or so [IMG]http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs26/i/2008/039/6/6/Uriel_by_One_Vox.jpg[/IMG] and that's the angel in charge of setting fire to shit, so he's basically the Pyro from TF2 if the Pyro had a really scary-looking hat on[/QUOTE] Some angels were covered in eyeballs and if you even saw them you could burst into holy fire. Pretty badass if you ask me. [editline]31st May 2012[/editline] Scratch that...pretty metal if you ask me.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36147484]Some angels were covered in eyeballs and if you even saw them you could burst into holy fire. Pretty badass if you ask me.[/QUOTE] there's also the dragon-lion-bull-human-headed constantly-screaming angels which scare the fuck out of everyone in Heaven, as well as the really serious-looking guys with six wings trying their hardest not to vaporize people by moving the four wings from their body Heaven sounds a lot less like actual Heaven and more like the level from AoM

Before I post, I'll let you guys know I respect atheism and even agree with a lot of what it has to say. But people are very misinformed. The creation story in the Bible is completely figurative and should [i]not[/i] be considered literal in any way shape or form. The same goes for many other stories in the Old Testament. Fundamental Catholics and even the Pope himself says this; unfortunately there are a ton of idiots out there who are as dumb as rocks and they proclaim it's the direct word of God being spoken with absolute 100% literal purity. Allow me to explain. During the first part of the creation story, this is when God created the universe in "seven days." Let's analyze the characteristics of this so-called God. He is very majestic and powerful, he's seen as a forceful entity who speaks in thunderous voices to command the creation of the universe and all that came to be. Now in the second part of the creation story, this is where Adam and Eve come into play. Did they exist? Hell no. Are Catholics and Christians suppose to believe they did? No, but the problem is some of them are stupid enough that they do. Now in this story let's see who God is. He's very personal and even intimate with Adam and Eve, he's close to them. This God gives them advice and even cares for them. Here's what I'm getting at. As said, the creation stories [i]are[/i] nothing more but stories. It's in no way suppose to represent anything that actually happened. They are simply stories written in a figurative and symbolic style to explain that God is mysterious, powerful, and majestic - but at the same time he's a very personal God, intimate, and caring. The same goes for Noah and The Ark, the Book of Job, Jonah and the Whale, and a number of other stories within the texts of the Bible. Not all Christians are Creationists, just the incoherent ones. So don't blame Christians in general, just the dumb ones lol. Anyways Eve was probably one hot bitch.

[QUOTE=zacht_180;36147946]Before I post, I'll let you guys know I respect atheism and even agree with a lot of what it has to say.[/QUOTE] atheism doesn't "say" anything, it's just not believing in god.

[QUOTE=KlaseR;36148149]atheism doesn't "say" anything, it's just not believing in god.[/QUOTE] Yeah excuse me. What I meant was the arguments and rational thoughts that atheists present themselves with.

I think a good conclusion to this thread is "Do not fuck with cows"

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;36121634]I'll leave it at this: the bible has a run-on sentence that lasts for around [I]two-hundred and twenty words[/I], and a third of them are "begat".[/QUOTE] The most fundamental example of polysyndeton there is.

[QUOTE=zacht_180;36147946]Before I post, I'll let you guys know I respect atheism and even agree with a lot of what it has to say. But people are very misinformed. The creation story in the Bible is completely figurative and should [i]not[/i] be considered literal in any way shape or form. The same goes for many other stories in the Old Testament. Fundamental Catholics and even the Pope himself says this; unfortunately there are a ton of idiots out there who are as dumb as rocks and they proclaim it's the direct word of God being spoken with absolute 100% literal purity. Allow me to explain. During the first part of the creation story, this is when God created the universe in "seven days." Let's analyze the characteristics of this so-called God. He is very majestic and powerful, he's seen as a forceful entity who speaks in thunderous voices to command the creation of the universe and all that came to be. Now in the second part of the creation story, this is where Adam and Eve come into play. Did they exist? Hell no. Are Catholics and Christians suppose to believe they did? No, but the problem is some of them are stupid enough that they do. Now in this story let's see who God is. He's very personal and even intimate with Adam and Eve, he's close to them. This God gives them advice and even cares for them. Here's what I'm getting at. As said, the creation stories [i]are[/i] nothing more but stories. It's in no way suppose to represent anything that actually happened. They are simply stories written in a figurative and symbolic style to explain that God is mysterious, powerful, and majestic - but at the same time he's a very personal God, intimate, and caring. The same goes for Noah and The Ark, the Book of Job, Jonah and the Whale, and a number of other stories within the texts of the Bible. Not all Christians are Creationists, just the incoherent ones. So don't blame Christians in general, just the dumb ones lol. [/QUOTE] How the fuck do you get caring from that? He cares for Adam and Eve? What, before or after he threw them out of the Garden of Eden for being naive, and then condemned the rest of humanity for it? Maybe he should have included a line "oh by the way if you do eat the from the tree I told you not to, you'll be fucked for eternity. and I'll ruin sex and nudity" Or about how he cares for humanity so much that he becomes his son and is crucified and resurrected and then ascends (back) to heaven... all to forgive humanity of the original sin that he assigned in the first place. This is not the thought process of a rational or reasonable god. You say 'mysterious', I say schizophrenic. Even if the Christian god existed, he certainly doesn't deserve an ounce of respect or worship. that deity needs therapy

[QUOTE=zacht_180;36147946]I'll let you guys know I respect atheism and even agree with a lot of what it has to say.[/QUOTE] ????? the only part of atheism you can agree or disagree with is the part where a god doesn't exist [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] which "parts" do you "agree" with

[QUOTE=Turnips5;36151843]????? the only part of atheism you can agree or disagree with is the part where a god doesn't exist [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] which "parts" do you "agree" with[/QUOTE] To be fair, there are often common themes and thinking styles shared between most atheists. For example, there is a common attitude towards faith, science, and logic. I get what he's saying, and it's easy to group all atheists together. When you put a name to something you generally try and think all people in that group are similar to a certain extent. It's the same as how we commonly look at Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc.

I know that Zoroaster's original ancient texts actually had a first person description of a cow getting slaughtered. It is the first recorded time someone writes in the point of view of an animal. Seriously, do not mess with cows. Athuramazda will fuck you up.

I tried reading the bible once out of literary interest/boredom, and I have to say it was an incredibly boring read. And I supposedly read the most interesting bit, Ezekiel.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;36153593]I tried reading the bible once out of literary interest/boredom, and I have to say it was an incredibly boring read. And I supposedly read the most interesting bit, Ezekiel.[/QUOTE] It's pretty dry, it takes a certain attitude to read any book of the bible. Whenever I read it, I personally go at it really slow, reading a chapter then reflecting on what it said. If you try and take it like a novel or even a reference book, it will be really boring. However, you take it from the right angle and the right attitude and it's at least somewhat interesting.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;36153593]I tried reading the bible once out of literary interest/boredom, and I have to say it was an incredibly boring read. And I supposedly read the most interesting bit, Ezekiel.[/QUOTE] Start at Revelations to prime you next time

[QUOTE=Contag;36151607]How the fuck do you get caring from that? He cares for Adam and Eve? What, before or after he threw them out of the Garden of Eden for being naive, and then condemned the rest of humanity for it? Maybe he should have included a line "oh by the way if you do eat the from the tree I told you not to, you'll be fucked for eternity. and I'll ruin sex and nudity" Or about how he cares for humanity so much that he becomes his son and is crucified and resurrected and then ascends (back) to heaven... all to forgive humanity of the original sin that he assigned in the first place. This is not the thought process of a rational or reasonable god. You say 'mysterious', I say schizophrenic. Even if the Christian god existed, he certainly doesn't deserve an ounce of respect or worship. that deity needs therapy[/QUOTE] Maybe not so much the caring God as just a personal God. I'm not sure you really understand. Read the Bible three times over and dip into some other things - those stories are all completely allegorical. Because I was simply informing the misinformed doesn't mean that I was trying to change anyone's theological views or anything. I was just stating the truth. Not the truth about a God if he did exist, just truth about the meanings of the texts and what Christians should normally believe - but the thing is, like I said earlier, a lot of them tend to be stupid and incoherent. Don't think I'm trying to justify or support Christianity because I'm not. [quote="Turnips5"]????? the only part of atheism you can agree or disagree with is the part where a god doesn't exist Edited: which "parts" do you "agree" with[/quote] Oh for fuck's sake, I said earlier it was my fault for phrasing that in a poor way and my fault for confusing you guys. I don't agree with 'parts' of atheism, but I agree with the things a lot of atheists say concerning as to why they think that way. I admire their thought, rationality, and reasoning. Happy?

[QUOTE=zacht_180;36156461]Oh for fuck's sake, I said earlier it was my fault for phrasing that in a poor way and my fault for confusing you guys. I don't agree with 'parts' of atheism, but I agree with the things a lot of atheists say concerning as to why they think that why. I admire their thought, rationality, and reasoning. Happy?[/QUOTE] I missed the post asking roughly the same question. Apologies.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;36158723]I missed the post asking roughly the same question. Apologies.[/QUOTE] Yeah no problem, my bad again if I sounded like a douchebag.