Curious - Page 6

Curious

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 20 May 2010, 23:14

Raghna wrote: But towards that 'backing up those sort of argument, do I really need to?
I do believe the following might be slightly extremer:
Image
You are not going to convince a sensible person that the average muslim has those views by posting pictures of extremists.
Raghna wrote:How am I being Nationalistic without even typing the name of my country?
That was in response to your implied strong association between religion and country, despite the fact that there are muslims throughout the globe...which is religious nationalism.
Raghna wrote:I think a confrontation is needed. More so than cowering back and giving them more and more ground, the more we give in to them, the worse they'll become.
What kind of inter-religious "confrontation" involving extremists of one sort or another would be even vaguely a good idea?
Raghna wrote:Just the same as with a child, if you give buy him a toy now, he'll cry even harder if you don't give him his toy the next time.
This implies that being an islamic extremist versus not is equivalent to a parent:child relationship...which is absolutely absurd. The mechanics are vastly different; it's not even appropriate as an analogy, let alone brought into reification.
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7017
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: Curious

Post by zwzsg » 20 May 2010, 23:20

Forboding Angel wrote:Athiests have the issue of not being bound by morals at all if they so choose. There is no good better best scenario here and the final test relies on the person himself, religious or not, whether his is or can be corrupted.

I would go so far as to say that believing in nothing leaves the individual in question more open to lack of morals and corruption than believing in something would.
That's a common defense of religion, but in practice, it doesn't hold.

People who don't believe in after life are far more likely to value life, theirs or others, much more than those who believe they'll get to heaven if they slay enough infidels.
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 23:23

Raghna wrote:Just the same as with a child, if you give buy him a toy now, he'll cry even harder if you don't give him his toy the next time.
This implies that being muslim versus not is equivalent to a (naturally unequal) parent:child relationship...which is absolutely absurd.[/quote]

Christianity was just as fanatic as the Islam is now. Christianity evolved, Islam hasn't yet.
For further information about the subject, see 'Why the contra-reformation of the catholic church was also a reformation.
Peet wrote:
Raghna wrote:How am I being Nationalistic without even typing the name of my country?
That was in response to your implied strong association between religion and country, despite the fact that there are muslims throughout the globe...which is religious nationalism.

Can an agnostic even be religious nationalistic?
Peet wrote:What kind of inter-religious "confrontation" involving extremists of one sort or another would be even vaguely a good idea?

Any that aims at protecting itself from any harm.
It's like saying: How was Saladin raising an army and defending oneself from the Christian crusaders a good idea?
0 x

User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Curious

Post by momfreeek » 20 May 2010, 23:27

Jazcash wrote:Since when has Christianity ever been a problem? I mean true Christianity. Not some mental nut who does something stupid and calls himself a Christian.
Exactly the same could be said of islam.

IMO much of the root of the terrorism problem atm is economic. Religion is easily used as a propoganda tool to convince others to wage war.. and once people have been convinced that this is 'right' things easily slide out of the control of any sane person. The crusades is an obvious example. Don't be one of the tools that is easily convinced and shouts for someone else's cause. Use your own mind to decide what is right and wrong for society.

Anyone really following the teachings of the old testament in this day and age would be regarded as a complete nutjob. Things move on in christianity all the time and the idea that 'gays are evil' is one of those things that is changing. I only hope there's enough people with sense to ridicule such persecution/criminalisation wherever it crops up so things do not slide out of control... I really don't think its a good idea to head back in the direction of public stonings, do you?

Be pragamatic, not a religious fundamentalist.
Last edited by momfreeek on 20 May 2010, 23:33, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 20 May 2010, 23:29

Raghna wrote:
Peet wrote:
Raghna wrote:Just the same as with a child, if you give buy him a toy now, he'll cry even harder if you don't give him his toy the next time.
This implies that being muslim versus not is equivalent to a (naturally unequal) parent:child relationship...which is absolutely absurd.
Christianity was just as fanatic as the Islam is now. Christianity evolved, Islam hasn't yet.
For further information about the subject, see 'Why the contra-reformation of the catholic church was also a reformation.
How does this even refute my point? Becoming an adult or parent is not the same as a religion evolving.
Raghna wrote:
Peet wrote:
Raghna wrote:How am I being Nationalistic without even typing the name of my country?
That was in response to your implied strong association between religion and country, despite the fact that there are muslims throughout the globe...which is religious nationalism.
Can an agnostic even be religious nationalistic?
Yes, considering that you appear to be pigeonholing islamic extremism to one country or set of countries.
Raghna wrote:
Peet wrote:What kind of inter-religious "confrontation" involving extremists of one sort or another would be even vaguely a good idea?
Any that aims at protecting itself from any harm.
It's like saying: How was Saladin raising an army and defending oneself from the Christian crusaders a good idea?
I would like you to elaborate and drop the vagueness. Do you propose the League of Noble Christian Nations form a unified army to defeat the heathens? Or just stage ridiculous demonstrations like the one pictured above?
Last edited by Peet on 20 May 2010, 23:33, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Curious

Post by Jazcash » 20 May 2010, 23:31

KaiserJ wrote:i can assure you that to the best of my knowledge, they don't give two shits about people drawing mohammed or going on a jihad. they care about getting pussy, partying, video games, movies, the same sort of things that you and i can relate to.
Some Muslims they are. If you don't even attempt to follow the morality of the religion's given text then you don't deserve to belong to it. And in not deserving to belong to it, you don't belong to it.

For example, there's a guy called Jim. Jim's never read any of the Qu'ran, he doesn't follow it's guides or moral laws in any way. He does what he pleases and doesn't really care about Islam. However, his parents are Islam and he wouldn't want to dishonour them by not being a Muslim. Also, they might try and kill him otherwise.

Therefore, Jim calls himself a Muslim. People think he's a Muslim, people label him because he calls himself a Muslim, and people's views of Islam can be shaped by what Jim does.

One day, Jim decides to rape a girl. In no way is this related to Islam and he isn't doing it because the Qu'ran tells him to. However, because he called himself a Muslim, other people think that Islam encourages rape because Jim raped somebody and he called himself a Muslim.

This happens continuously and will continue to happen for as long as the human mind is alive. It's how we're designed to think. In order to counteract that process of the mind, you must simply be aware of it. If you question yourself as to why you think something of another, and give yourself proper justification as to why you thought it, you can be sure of the accusations you throw instead of throwing them blindly.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Curious

Post by KaiserJ » 20 May 2010, 23:40

i'm just saddened by all of this

all of us on this forum have a lot in common; we're all intelligent, we all come from civilized countries, and share a lot of interests and skills.

and yet its still very difficult to bend our minds to other peoples viewpoints, if even to understand them and not agree with them (goes for all of us i guess, me included)

/brb digging fallout shelter

:cry:
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7017
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: Curious

Post by zwzsg » 20 May 2010, 23:41

Jazcash wrote:I see no point in continuing with this unless people realise that the old testament is before the birth of Jesus Christ which is before he "died for our sins". That's when morality was set in stone.

You know, in the Old Testament, it states that the only people who could be Christians were Jews. In fact, it states countless things which the New Testament teaches against.

All the quotes of the Bible in this thread are from the Old Testament and are quoted without any context at all. If you could find some New Testament quotes, that would be great. Thanks.
Forboding Angel wrote:I would like to point out to many of you that Leveticus (Law, or First Law) and Deuteronomy (Second Law), are irrelevant as of Christ dying on the cross. Citing them as active biblical laws is citing your own misunderstanding (or stupidity, if you prefer).
No, the old testament is the Bible, it is holy, it is the word of god, and as such, infallible. Ask your local priest about it.

Related links:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... ofgod.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t001.html
0 x

User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: Curious

Post by JohannesH » 20 May 2010, 23:41

As long as you eat pork and drink alcohol you're ok in my books!
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Curious

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 20 May 2010, 23:45

Forboding Angel wrote:Athiests have the issue of not being bound by morals at all if they so choose. There is no good better best scenario here and the final test relies on the person himself, religious or not, whether his is or can be corrupted.

I would go so far as to say that believing in nothing leaves the individual in question more open to lack of morals and corruption than believing in something would.
you are implying that morals are a product of religion, which is patently false.

Society has morals. I grew up in a completely athiest enviroment, with athiest parents, in an australian village with no church for a zillion miles in any direction. my parents never even mentioned religion to me, I dont think we even owned a bible. I first encountered religion at school. I am equally athiest now. I have never attended church besides for village carols.

and yet... I have a perfectly developed set of morals shared by most of british society. A set of morals that dosn't meet up with the morals proposed by the bible in all that many places, either, I have no problem with sex before marriage, working on sundays, cursing, boozing or any number of biblical no-nos. I know right from wrong because I was positively reinforced or punished when exhibiting behaviors or oppinions- and I continue to be influenced in this manner.

where does religion enter the equation here..?
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 23:51

Peet,
all you've been doing so far is putting doubt in my statements, calling them 'vague' or 'not on topic' even when they obviously are.

I called the Muslim religion childish compared to Christianity and that it still needs to evolve. Maybe you fail to see this but I don't think I need to further explain how this is demonstrated by a parent-child relation.

Also, last time I checked, generalization was not related to nationalism. Now, please refrain from just naming yet another characteristic of my point of view and call it nationalism. Thanks.
Peet wrote:I would like you to elaborate and drop the vagueness. Do you propose the League of Noble Christian Nations form a unified army to defeat the heathens? Or just stage ridiculous demonstrations like the one pictured above?
Wait, what? Have you even been following what has been said here?
First you call me evil for confronting Muslims by drawing Muhammad so they stop killing cartoonists. And then you say I'm too vague and not elaborate enough and that you might think I plan some retarded religious military campaign.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Curious

Post by KaiserJ » 20 May 2010, 23:52

Some Muslims they are. If you don't even attempt to follow the morality of the religion's given text then you don't deserve to belong to it. And in not deserving to belong to it, you don't belong to it
but here you are, saying how and what a muslim should think

that's like me saying "oh you aren't a true christian because you aren't a snake handler, you aren't christian because you aren't catholic, you aren't christian because you don't follow the old testament"

religious morality is always a choice open to interpretation... thats why there are so many sects of christianity with different rules and customs.

you see what i mean? i can't say shit to you, because i'm not you. you call yourself a christian, you live your life in a certain way, and that's perfectly fine. i would never presume to tell you whether you were a "good" christian for doing something, because the bottom line is its all about what YOU believe.

conversely, you can't say they are -bad- muslims, because you aren't them, you don't know what goes on inside their heads...

my whole point is that you making presumptions about what is a muslim is pretty much on the same level as me trying to define a christian. you feel those people aren't muslims, thats fine. but they feel they are. and by extension, they ARE muslim, just as you are christian, even though you don't do stuff like drinking snake blood and stoning heathens.
0 x

User avatar
Raghna
Posts: 185
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:04

Re: Curious

Post by Raghna » 20 May 2010, 23:57

Is anyone here non-agnostic?
If so, is anyone here non-atheist?

EDIT: Ivory king, you said you were atheist, do you know what agnosticism is?
Last edited by Raghna on 20 May 2010, 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
momfreeek
Posts: 625
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 16:50

Re: Curious

Post by momfreeek » 20 May 2010, 23:58

@jazz:

Someone wrote a book (the Koran), which presumably you think is a load of bollocks. Some guy likes the book but doesn't like blowing up christians.. and you have a problem with this? Its not like you believe it is gods divine work he is subverting? Ofc he might just as well have a problem with you not wanting to stone adulterous women as is written in the bible but then he'd be just as much a hypocrite.

His own religion is his own religion. Your own religion is your own religion. Don't tell me its exactly as the bible tells cause there's a million other ways to read the thing and a million other christian sects that believe differently to you but are also the "one truth".
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Curious

Post by Jazcash » 21 May 2010, 00:05

KaiserJ wrote: you see what i mean? i can't say shit to you, because i'm not you. you call yourself a christian, you live your life in a certain way, and that's perfectly fine. i would never presume to tell you whether you were a "good" christian for doing something, because the bottom line is its all about what YOU believe.
I'm not a Christian and never said I was.
conversely, you can't say they are -bad- muslims, because you aren't them, you don't know what goes on inside their heads...
Don't know where you got that idea from. I can say they're bad Muslims if I like and I can choose the believe they're bad Muslims or not Muslims at all if I so wish. Whether people are influenced by what I say or think is up to them.

You seem to be confused with what 'thinking' is. If somebody who calls themselves a woman, has a penis, I have the right to think they're a man. Whether you share the same thought is up to you but in my mind, they're a man.

Let me explain further. To be of a religion, you need to at least try and abide by it's teachings. Otherwise, you aren't part of that religion at all.

A more common example:

To be a cake, you need to be a cake and not a human. If you are a human and not in fact a cake, then you are actually a human and you do not posses the same attributes as a cake. Because you do not posses the same qualities as a cake, you are not a cake. No matter what you proclaim. You may feel free to justify yourself, some people might even have the same belief as you can also think you're a cake. However, factually, you are not a cake because to be a cake you need to posses the same personalities as a cake.

I hope that's cleared things up a bit.
Last edited by Jazcash on 06 Mar 2011, 04:18, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Curious

Post by Jazcash » 21 May 2010, 00:06

momfreeek wrote:@jazz:

Someone wrote a book (the Koran), which presumably you think is a load of bollocks. Some guy likes the book but doesn't like blowing up christians.. and you have a problem with this?
No I don't. However, I don't believe it's teachings are morally correct and so the problem occurs when he follows up what it tells him to do.
0 x

User avatar
KaiserJ
Community Representative
Posts: 3113
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 22:59

Re: Curious

Post by KaiserJ » 21 May 2010, 00:07

JohannesH wrote:As long as you eat pork and drink alcohol you're ok in my books!
new product idea : porkohol! make sure the logo is a religious icon that offends EVERYBODY. put some swastikas etc for the atheists and agnostics, and it comes with a free condom behind the label for the catholics. the "mascot" can be a swashbuckling, fornicating colonialist mohammed jesus prototype with laser eyes, a tribal spear and a north korean flag.

"bottle may be returned for 20c refund where applicable. but not by women."
0 x

User avatar
Peet
Malcontent
Posts: 4381
Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 22:04

Re: Curious

Post by Peet » 21 May 2010, 00:09

Raghna wrote:Peet,
all you've been doing so far is putting doubt in my statements, calling them 'vague' or 'not on topic' even when they obviously are.
I am throwing doubt upon your statements because I feel they are patently false. And I never accused you of being off-topic, and your vagueness is denigrated below.
Raghna wrote:I called the Muslim religion childish compared to Christianity and that it still needs to evolve. Maybe you fail to see this but I don't think I need to further explain how this is demonstrated by a parent-child relation.
Childish is not an adjective that can be applied to a religion to make any sort of semantic sense. Antiquated or not corresponding to your "more modern" belief system, perhaps.
Raghna wrote:
Peet wrote:I would like you to elaborate and drop the vagueness. Do you propose the League of Noble Christian Nations form a unified army to defeat the heathens? Or just stage ridiculous demonstrations like the one pictured above?
Wait, what? Have you even been following what has been said here?
First you call me evil for confronting Muslims by drawing Muhammad so they stop killing cartoonists. And then you say I'm too vague and not elaborate enough and that you might think I plan some retarded religious military campaign.
I missed wherever you defined "confront" to mean "draw mohammed". In any case as far as I can see, that particular action simply is interpreted by those whom we are discussing as a grave insult against the islamic faith in general. How is that confronting the relevant group? It is obviously an attempt to provoke them and ridicule their ideology that it is wrong to iconize mohammed. I certainly do not agree with those who think that the relevant cartoonists should be strung from a tree, however I think it is pretty repugnant to be intentionally and blatantly insulting the religious views of another group.
Jazcash wrote:Don't know where you got that idea from. I can say they're bad Muslims if I like and I can choose the believe they're bad Muslims or not Muslims at all if I so wish. Whether people are influenced by what I say or think is up to them.

You seem to be confused with what 'thinking' is. If somebody who calls themselves a woman, has a penis, I have the right to think they're a man. Whether you share the same thought is up to you but in my mind, they're a man.
I suggest you adjust your language in the future to make it explicit that you are expressing your own personal opinions and not something you consider to be a universal fact.

The sky is blue. I think blue is an alright colour.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: Curious

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 21 May 2010, 00:10

Raghna wrote:Wait, what? Have you even been following what has been said here?
First you call me evil for confronting Muslims by drawing Muhammad so they stop killing cartoonists. And then you say I'm too vague and not elaborate enough and that you might think I plan some retarded religious military campaign.
He never called you evil or retarded.

He suggested that your morality is childish, which in light of your recent posts seems perfectly reasonable. You speak and apparently think in the black-and-white extremities of moral correctness assosiated with the under-developed reasoning of children.
Last edited by 1v0ry_k1ng on 21 May 2010, 00:11, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5302
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: Curious

Post by Jazcash » 21 May 2010, 00:10

KaiserJ wrote:
JohannesH wrote:As long as you eat pork and drink alcohol you're ok in my books!
new product idea : porkohol! make sure the logo is a religious icon that offends EVERYBODY. put some swastikas etc for the atheists and agnostics, and it comes with a free condom behind the label for the catholics. the "mascot" can be a swashbuckling, fornicating colonialist mohammed jesus prototype with laser eyes, a tribal spear and a north korean flag.

"bottle may be returned for 20c refund where applicable. but not by women."
Insulting religion is one thing but insulting the innocent Jews who died torturous deaths is another. I have no relation to the Jews or any such matter related to the holocaust. I myself am not offended by a swastika, however, I don't see it as very respectful and it's certainly not very dignified.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”