Forums / Discussion / General

169,934 total conversations in 5,441 threads

+ New Thread


LET'S CONTROVERSY: Official Religion Thread

Last posted Mar 14, 2014 at 09:15AM EDT. Added Jan 16, 2014 at 04:40PM EST
166 posts from 53 users

Sam wrote:

Sounds reasonable enough. Many Christians don’t believe in Adam and Eve nowadays to begin with, so it could be excluded as an argument depending on what kind of Christian you’re talking to.

True, I would wonder what would be going through a person’s head as they were designing this whole thing. Why make a tree with fruit that you shouldn’t eat from in the first place? What lesson does that teach? Not eat fruits? Well, it does symbolize obedience and submission to God, but why fruits on a tree? Shouldn’t a priority be teaching humans the Ten Commandments?

Well, it is thee tree of knowledge and that is a major part of the lore and the most interesting. It is the tree of understanding on what is good and what is evil, and thus maybe eating from the knowledge one can commit evil it is beyond tempting to do so, and thus to know what is good and what is evil, we doom ourselves in our adventure to improve ourselves.

Maybe Adam and Eve is a image of what had happened, maybe it literally happened, maybe it is just pretty stories, we will never know I guess.

@Mangy

I don’t think you understand the difference between having a disagreement and mocking someone. You see, Sam and I have a disagreement right now and that I believe in god and he questions his existence, without insult (currently). You on the other hand Mangy, are insulting and through a use of mockery and have made a general statement meant as a general insult.

Feb 16, 2014 at 07:56PM EST
Quote

Ugh, I might as well repeat myself then you’re doing the same.

“Chickenhound, disagreements don’t have to be courteous to be disagreements.”

By the way, what’s the supposed insult you keep going on about?

Feb 16, 2014 at 09:41PM EST
Quote

Bionic Kraken wrote:

Something that I’ve noticed is that whenever someone tries to disprove God, they only try to disprove the gods and goddesses of existing religions. Especially the Abrahamic ones. Has anyone ever tried to disprove the idea of any entity existing? I’m not talking about the Abrahamic God or any other being from any other existing religions. I’m talking about the general idea of an entity. Science may clash with existing religions, but does it clash with the existence of a god at all? What if a god created evolution? What if a god created the Big Bang?

I may sound crazy, but what if our universe is extremely small, and it is just an experiment in a laboratory in a bigger universe? We could just be a big experiment, where our physical, mental, and emotional differences as humans are just controls and variables in an experiment set up by a greater scientist who’s hypothesis was that people would fight if they were different, because in the greater universe, everyone is the same. Events like World War II could just be results of their experiments. When compared to chemistry, things like religions can just be catalysts in their experiments. What if religion was added to the experiment to see how it would react with the people? What if Christianity was added to the experiment to see how it would react with Judaism? What if Islam was added to the experiment to see how it would react to Christianity?

Or, I’m just high.

Less involvement than that, even. Life on Earth is as a bacterial culture if God is a scientist. Mass extinctions have been introducing selective pressures to see what would happen, and are the only times He has directly interfered with and observed life on Earth. He either hasn’t noticed humans yet, or just did, or will soon, because of our huge effects on the Earth’s landscape and ecosystems over the past couple centuries.

I thought of that the other day, and I wasn’t even high.

Feb 16, 2014 at 10:12PM EST
Quote

Dr. Coolface wrote:

Less involvement than that, even. Life on Earth is as a bacterial culture if God is a scientist. Mass extinctions have been introducing selective pressures to see what would happen, and are the only times He has directly interfered with and observed life on Earth. He either hasn’t noticed humans yet, or just did, or will soon, because of our huge effects on the Earth’s landscape and ecosystems over the past couple centuries.

I thought of that the other day, and I wasn’t even high.

He usually tries to intervene during commercial breaks of X-File reruns.

Feb 16, 2014 at 11:50PM EST

LightDragonman1 wrote:

Might as well talk about what I believe.

I am a Christian, and fully believe in the teachings of Jesus. However, I also believe that a lot of the stories in the OT and the like are meant to be metaphorical, and not be taken too seriously. Science and religion imo, can go well together, and despite what some think, religious people shouldn’t be put in the mental hospital just for believing in someone higher than us.

More than anything though, I believe that while scriptures are indeed good to follow, what truly matters is that one’s belief in God helps others and makes the world a better place. It’s not about whether or not the stories and teachings you follow are completely based in reality. What matters is whether or not your beliefs are making you a better person or not. If all you are going to do is just read the Bible from front to back and blindly follow what it says without thinking, or go to Church every Sunday but not show your faith in a positive manner, than you’re not doing justice to the teachings of Jesus.

Why else do you think that there are so many fundamentalists who shout that everything in the Bible is true, even though it makes them out to be incredibly close-minded and the like? I believe in having a flexibility in what we believe. Like, I’m pretty sure that God doesn’t want us to hate homosexuals for example. I also think that when God created the universe, he obviously didn’t create it in a matter of seven 24-hour days. That’s just a metaphor. In fact, recognizing what is a metaphor and not is key to how one proceeds in terms of faith. As long as one can recognize that not all the stories in the Bible are meant to be completely real-life, it makes it a lot better to follow.

As for those who ask why we follow God if the stories in the Bible paint him in not the most favorable light and stuff, my answer is that that isn’t what matters. Again, while scriptures are good, if all you are going to do is base your belief on the fantastical elements and stories, you are missing the point completely. What matters, again, is making sure your belief leads you to become a better person and helps others. God gave us a brain after all. To not use it is rather insulting.

So yeah, that’s what I believe. Thoughts?

what_chatholics_believe_other_than_the_creed.txt

Feb 16, 2014 at 11:59PM EST
Quote

@Algernon

It’s one of the few Biblical stories that seems to directly contradict our current scientific understanding.

That’s why most Christians don’t accept it as literal fact.

Let’s face it. It’s a parable. The story was never made to make logical sense. It was made so that ancient minds could grasp a basic idea with their ancient brains. Not so that people tens of thousands of years in the future could have a perfect account of everything that happened for their records

It’s impossible to defend the Genisis story on logical grounds and try to make it sound plausible. It was never written so that it should be. Attempting to rationalize the story presents a ton of logical problems and questions that just aren’t even worth rationalizing. It’s so bad that if the Genisis story were true, it would present even more problems for the religion than solutions. That’s why you’ve heard all these questions that nobody has provided an answer towards. There are no answers. Trying to answer for it is a complete waste of time for Christians, they have better things to do.

As I said: it doesn’t even matter. The religion is not dependent upon it being true. Christians don’t need to rationalize it. For most of the Christians I know; how the universe was created doesn’t take away who made it for them, so they’re happy to accept any other theory that makes more scientific sense. They’ll just say “that’s probably how God did it instead”

So it’s better to just accept it for what it is: a story that was thrown together over the course of centuries by different people, all who gave their best ancient guess based on sparse information passed down to them from parent to parent which nobody even recorded (because the idea of recording history didn’t exist until that point). Trying to debate how it does or doesn’t make sense serves as little more than a distraction from the real concepts we should be grasping.

On that note: Why are people still arguing over it?

Our current understanding of morality, along with the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is just an extension of that sort of behaviour which developed along with our increasing intelligence and greater reliance on complex social structures.

I agree. This I why I’m more partial to the idea that there is no “good god, bad devil.”. Instead there’s just a neutral god. No devil. Because good and evil are not forces of the universe. They’re social constructs that we invented to define behavior in ourselves that we do and do not find supportive.

If there’s a devil. He’s us. He’s our instincts that may lead to harm.

easily answered if you take the stance that God’s omniscience does not imply that the universe is a completely deterministic place, and that even God doesn’t know exactly how the future will play out.

I’m of the opinion that God…if we assume one on the biblical sense…is not omnipotent and does not know the future. Because that’s all the bible stories show. I’m not sure where the whole omnipotence idea comes from to be honest


@Bionic

What if a god created evolution? What if a god created the Big Bang?

I may sound crazy, but what if our universe is extremely small, and it is just an experiment in a laboratory in a bigger universe? We could just be a big experiment, where our physical, mental, and emotional differences as humans are just controls and variables in an experiment set up by a greater scientist who’s hypothesis was that people would fight if they were different, because in the greater universe, everyone is the same

Sanest thing I’ve heard so far


@Chickenhound and Mangy arguing over what counts as an insult and what doesn’t

That’s enough you guys. You’re both going around in circles with this.

Mangy, what don’t you seem to understand? Calling his religion a fairy tale is tactless mockery. I think he pointed that out to you more than once.

You are stirring trouble right now. You’re threatening to derail this discussion into a pointless banter between yourself and chickenhound. Also you are responsible for the impact your words make. If you don’t see the vibe coming from anyone, that’s because it’s coming from you. And arguments don’t have to be courteous, but neither do they need to be spiteful and your discourtesy is uncalled for

Now…I don’t need you to respect religion. I don’t care if you find it idiotic. But right here in this thread, I demand order and that we stay on topic. That means keeping the snark to a minimum.

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 01:58AM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 01:45AM EST
Quote
This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

@Blue Screen (of Death)
Please direct me to the post where I said his entire religion is a fairy tale, because I never said that. You know what I find insulting, you two ganging up on me, making strawmen of me, and deliberately take what I say out of context all because of a couple blasted words. Then YOU have the bloody nerve to blame me for devolving the conservation, when in reality it’s you two that are ‘threatening to derail this discussion’ by acting you’ve lost all reading comprehensive ability. If you want a conservation, let’s have a conservation, but display some god damn honesty.

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 03:36AM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 03:35AM EST
Quote

I am not ganging up on you, Mangy. I don’t even disagree with your points on religion so far. I don’t have a problem with you, I have a problem with the verbal swordfighting in this discussion

And I mean this verbal swordfighting, lets walk through it:

He said


I don’t think you understand the difference between having a disagreement and mocking someone. You see, Sam and I have a disagreement right now and that I believe in god and he questions his existence, without insult (currently). You on the other hand Mangy, are insulting and through a use of mockery and have made a general statement meant as a general insult.

you said


Chickenhound, disagreements don’t have to be courteous to be disagreements.

he said


No. Calling my beliefs fairy tales isn’t a disagreeable opinion. . .it is fucking mockery. A disagreeable opinion would be “I don’t believe in this because X”, you are making a insulting statement.

you said


Actually, that is disagreement.

he said


Calling my beliefs ‘fairytales’ is what I consider mockery, and that is not disagreement.

you said


I called the Adam and Eve story a fairy tale because it’s not true

he said


And I quote from your previous post; “Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that’s rubbish. Again, this story makes your god look incompetent, malevolent, or both.” So yes, you called a story in my holy book rubbish and called my god incompetent.

you said


I only said the Adam and Eve story is an ancient fairy tale, WHICH IT IS

he said


You consider my faith and my holy book rubbish and call my god incompetent.

you said


Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that’s rubbish.

And that’s how all this started. As we can see, you are right that you didn’t mock Chickenhounds entire religion. But with throwing words like that around, it’s easy to see how you pissed him off with mocking tones and a little more tact could have avoided that

Now Mangy, I’m not putting all blame on you. I’ll be fair and say this: Chickenhound you need to lay off as well.

I see that the story means a lot to you, Chickenhound, and insults to it may as well apply to your whole faith to you so you have a right to be offended. But you still could have easily just let it go several posts ago. You’re getting far too worked up over what Mangy is saying. You didn’t have to extend “Genesis isn’t true” to “whole religion isn’t true”. Because while it may be technically incorrect to call the story a fairy tale, Mangy is right that his language has nothing to do with his point.

You both didn’t need to keep pressing it, and then Mangy uses a bunch of statements that just made it worse which I came out and addressed.

You were both taking this discussion to uncomfortable levels on an inappropriate subject and I asked it to cease. I apologize if I came off sounding unfair and placed too much blame on one side in my previous post. But I want you both to calm your tits

You may resume your normal points and opinions. But without the accusations of foulplay

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 05:13AM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 04:57AM EST
Quote

Mangy Black Sheep wrote:

@Chickenhound the Cruel
Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that’s rubbish. Again, this story makes your god look incompetent, malevolent, or both. You mean to tell me the supposed most powerful being in the universe couldn’t handle that any better? How and why let the supposed ultimate evil, Satan, sneak into the garden of Eden and persuade Adam and Eve to eat the apple, so much for ‘free will’, and why toy with them like that? You mean your god couldn’t just let Adam and Eve, who only been alive for about a day, exercise their ‘free will’ on their own without the threat of such severe punishment? Why punish them at all, he’s the one who made the damn tree to begin with. That would be like me leaving a bowl of food in front of a dog expecting him not to eat it and then punishing him for doing so.

To the next point, if your god has a ‘plan’, then what’s the point of prayer and ‘free will’ that Christians keep crowing about? I have yet to get a decent answer from Christians who believe in ’God’s Plan.

Lastly, are you admitting that Christians who actually read the Bible and stay Christian aren’t reading it with a critical eye?

When I imagine how a person would say the first two paragraphs vocally, it sounds belittling. Almost like the person is indirectly saying “Your ‘God’ is nothing more than a child burning ants with a magnifying glass.”

You have some valid questions, but most, if not all, are made rhetorically or sarcastically to the point where it becomes less of a question and more like an insult.

Edit: gah, blue screen explained it before I could

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 05:00AM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 04:59AM EST
Quote

But I want you both to calm your tits

With that clarification, I will indeed calm my man-tits and apologize by my part in this row. I have never been the one to take false assertions about my character or at least what I perceive to be false assertions lightly and may take things too far.

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 06:20AM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 06:18AM EST
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

I am not ganging up on you, Mangy. I don’t even disagree with your points on religion so far. I don’t have a problem with you, I have a problem with the verbal swordfighting in this discussion

And I mean this verbal swordfighting, lets walk through it:

He said


I don’t think you understand the difference between having a disagreement and mocking someone. You see, Sam and I have a disagreement right now and that I believe in god and he questions his existence, without insult (currently). You on the other hand Mangy, are insulting and through a use of mockery and have made a general statement meant as a general insult.

you said


Chickenhound, disagreements don’t have to be courteous to be disagreements.

he said


No. Calling my beliefs fairy tales isn’t a disagreeable opinion. . .it is fucking mockery. A disagreeable opinion would be “I don’t believe in this because X”, you are making a insulting statement.

you said


Actually, that is disagreement.

he said


Calling my beliefs ‘fairytales’ is what I consider mockery, and that is not disagreement.

you said


I called the Adam and Eve story a fairy tale because it’s not true

he said


And I quote from your previous post; “Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that’s rubbish. Again, this story makes your god look incompetent, malevolent, or both.” So yes, you called a story in my holy book rubbish and called my god incompetent.

you said


I only said the Adam and Eve story is an ancient fairy tale, WHICH IT IS

he said


You consider my faith and my holy book rubbish and call my god incompetent.

you said


Not that this really matters since the story of Adam and Eve is an ancient fairy tale anyway, but that’s rubbish.

And that’s how all this started. As we can see, you are right that you didn’t mock Chickenhounds entire religion. But with throwing words like that around, it’s easy to see how you pissed him off with mocking tones and a little more tact could have avoided that

Now Mangy, I’m not putting all blame on you. I’ll be fair and say this: Chickenhound you need to lay off as well.

I see that the story means a lot to you, Chickenhound, and insults to it may as well apply to your whole faith to you so you have a right to be offended. But you still could have easily just let it go several posts ago. You’re getting far too worked up over what Mangy is saying. You didn’t have to extend “Genesis isn’t true” to “whole religion isn’t true”. Because while it may be technically incorrect to call the story a fairy tale, Mangy is right that his language has nothing to do with his point.

You both didn’t need to keep pressing it, and then Mangy uses a bunch of statements that just made it worse which I came out and addressed.

You were both taking this discussion to uncomfortable levels on an inappropriate subject and I asked it to cease. I apologize if I came off sounding unfair and placed too much blame on one side in my previous post. But I want you both to calm your tits

You may resume your normal points and opinions. But without the accusations of foulplay

I apologize, it’s a known flaw of mine to not let these things go so easily. I’ll try not to reply to vile mockery if I can and clam my tits.

@Going

Yer 2 slow.

Step it up

[Sanic quoting intensifies]

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 07:01AM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 07:00AM EST
Quote

We can all agree that extremists on both sides of the fence are douchey assholes. My problem with religion is that (here in Murica anyways) religion has had a foothold in every part of Government including science, wars, policies of morals, etc. since the beginning. Now that there is somewhat of a shift in people wanting religion to stay out of said decisions, they are becoming bigger douchey assholes.

My problem with atheists is that they are acting like what is going on right now with the whole feminist movement. Fellings of being persecuted for so long has now turned into you are becoming that which you hated.

Last edited Feb 17, 2014 at 01:41PM EST
Feb 17, 2014 at 01:24PM EST
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

I assume hell is just total oblivion. Heaven is something, hell is nothing. Because IMO that’s all that is necessary for a god to do. While the whole concept of hell may be improbable, I consider that to at least be it’s most probable form. That is to say: there is no form at all. You just don’t go anywhere whatsoever

I mean, the only reason we get this elaborate image of hell is thank’s to the wild imaginations of renaissance artists.

This is where the idea comes from. Nothing else supports the image we’re all familiar with. But I bet God would look at that and think…“But why? What’s the point of making all that when I can just do nothing with you?”

Actually, in the bible hell is refered to be a huuuuge pit of fire…

Feb 17, 2014 at 01:39PM EST
Quote

Blue Screen said:

I mean, the only reason we get this elaborate image of hell is thank’s to the wild imaginations of renaissance artists.

Actually, the two primary sources for hell come from Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the Grand Finale of Revelation.

Both depict hell as the classic fire, torment, etc. that is the go to mental image when someone says “hell.” Arguments continue as the parable is just that--a parable, and so it could all be allegorical as most of Jesus’ parables are, while Revelation is the world’s most famous mindscrew.

Dante’s depiction has grown incredibly popular as well--that hell is defined as being totally separated from God, and since He created us with a need for Him, a total separation from Him is a hellish experience--more so after you’ve been shown he really does exist, and you’ll never know the love, warmth, and comfort that He’ll provide.

I could see that as a very fitting hell. You’ve rejected Him, so He’ll show you every thing you’ll miss out on--all the love, the joy, the comfort--that He provides. Then you’ll be stuck for the rest of eternity with the knowledge of all those wonderful things you’ll never get. Regret can be a far more powerful torment than any kind of fire.

Blue Screen said (again):

Why are people still arguing over it?

>asking this question
>in a religion thread

I see someone still believes in the one true Shiggy Diggy Doo.

Feb 17, 2014 at 08:42PM EST
Quote

Controversy thread eh? Well, I will happily say that I am surrounded by Heathens irl. I’m usually okay with differing beliefs, but it gets annoying when everyone I interact with is on the opposite team. Or at least is only a Christian in name only.

Mar 14, 2014 at 09:15AM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hello! You must login or signup first!