More Religious Nuts

[beamstas]

The people I've laid an attack on are the bastards in Africa who tear apart the lives of little children by declaring them to be witches.....all in the name of God of course. Or the so-called Christians in Northern Ireland who use their opposing religions as an excuse to hurl petrol bombs and stones and bullets at each other.
Or the Muslim suicide bombers who kill and maim innocent people in the name of God.
These are the people who are truly religious nuts.

In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.

 

[trainspotter]

Good to see that we can all live in peace in here.

 

[trainspotter]

Another forum have had this discussion in order of rank and file.

http://listverse.com/2008/04/02/8-atrocities-committed-in-the-name-of-religion/

 

[Julia]

Ktrianta ... please no trolling allowed.

I haven't seen any evidence that Ktrianta is trolling. On the contrary, I've found his answers to be polite and clearly responsive, as much as is possible on such a topic, to the questions posed.

I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.

This is one of those rather abstract concepts which will mean something different to most of us.
I know what you are meaning Bunyip, but might suggest that the girl at the races was somewhat misusing the notion of "having faith" when referring to the horse.

I guess most of us need something on which to base our existence. For those of us who do not believe in a God (or are agnostic which is my own preferred position), we need to believe in our own capacity to make meaning of our existence. This might take any number of forms, including simply believing in our own ability to make a difference to the world in which we live.

But for others, they prefer the concept of a 'guiding force' if you like, some entity which is in charge of all existence. I expect this is reassuring and offers a sense that whatever happens, it was 'meant to be' in the Great Plan.

When I look at the few religious people I know, I see that this faith/belief gives them a great deal of comfort and confidence, and at times I even vaguely envy that.

So maybe we need to acknowledge that a faith or belief must, ipso facto, be not demonstrable in concrete, material terms, and therefore expecting anyone to justify having a 'faith' will never be fruitful.

In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.

Ah, beamstas. It's certainly disgusting to us. However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food. It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole. To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!

 

[beamstas]

Ah, beamstas. It's certainly disgusting to us. However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food. It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole. To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!

And im sure raping little kids, hurling petrol bombs and suicide bombing is perfectly acceptable to the people who do it too.

Your comment, proved my point exactly, and the fact that the people do the above does not mean it's true for all religion. It's just true for the sick people who do it.

Anyway, im going to depart from this thread, and agree to disagree/whatever. I have had my say

Brad

 

[bunyip]

In my opinion, these are not religious people. They are as bad as the dogs who eat their own vomit.

They're religious people alright Brad.......they're absolute religious fanatics.
Many of them are regulars in churches and mosques.
Many of them spend countless hours praying to God, many of them are regulars in the confession box.
Some of them are convinced that their actions will be pleasing to God and he'll reward them with 80 virgins when they get to heaven.

Which brings me to another thought.....I wonder if the female suicide bombers believe they'll get 80 virginal men when they get to heaven.

 

[Julia]

The above comment about horses is completely retarded.

If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.

As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.

I think that comparing a spur of the moment deicision based on the name of something to believing in god is ridiculous. Maybe if a person announced their faith in a certain god because they like the name that analogy could be used, otherwise it's just a bad analogy that wasn't well thought out.

And im sure raping little kids, hurling petrol bombs and suicide bombing is perfectly acceptable to the people who do it too.

Your comment, proved my point exactly, and the fact that the people do the above does not mean it's true for all religion. It's just true for the sick people who do it.



Brad

Beamstas: you are doing exactly what you earlier criticised someone else for doing - making a quite ridiculous analogy.

To compare a religious belief which encourages rape and suicide bombing to the entirely physiological mechanism of dogs' vomiting is one of the more ludicrous analogies I've ever come across!

 

[bunyip]

I haven't seen any evidence that Ktrianta is trolling. On the contrary, I've found his answers to be polite and clearly responsive, as much as is possible on such a topic, to the questions posed.



This is one of those rather abstract concepts which will mean something different to most of us.
I know what you are meaning Bunyip, but might suggest that the girl at the races was somewhat misusing the notion of "having faith" when referring to the horse.

I guess most of us need something on which to base our existence. For those of us who do not believe in a God (or are agnostic which is my own preferred position), we need to believe in our own capacity to make meaning of our existence. This might take any number of forms, including simply believing in our own ability to make a difference to the world in which we live.

But for others, they prefer the concept of a 'guiding force' if you like, some entity which is in charge of all existence. I expect this is reassuring and offers a sense that whatever happens, it was 'meant to be' in the Great Plan.

When I look at the few religious people I know, I see that this faith/belief gives them a great deal of comfort and confidence, and at times I even vaguely envy that.

So maybe we need to acknowledge that a faith or belief must, ipso facto, be not demonstrable in concrete, material terms, and therefore expecting anyone to justify having a 'faith' will never be fruitful.




Ah, beamstas. It's certainly disgusting to us. However, dogs do this when they have eaten too fast, essentially just inhaling the food. It's therefore undigested and comes back up pretty much whole. To them, it's just as good as having the whole meal all over again!

Ah Julia....where would this forum be without your clear thinking and steady guiding hand to steer us back on track when we stray from the beaten path!

Seriously, you show your usual good sense in abundant measure, and I'm sure that most of us on here appreciate it.

 

[gooner]

There is a program on the fatwa on Salmon Rushdie on right now.

Ayatollah Khomeini - now there is a real religious nutter

 

[bunyip]

Beamstas: you are doing exactly what you earlier criticised someone else for doing - making a quite ridiculous analogy.

To compare a religious belief which encourages rape and suicide bombing to the entirely physiological mechanism of dogs' vomiting is one of the more ludicrous analogies I've ever come across!

Perhaps we should borrow from Beamstas vocabulary and call his analogies 'retarded'.

 

[weird]

They're religious people alright Brad.......they're absolute religious fanatics.
Many of them are regulars in churches and mosques.
Many of them spend countless hours praying to God, many of them are regulars in the confession box.
Some of them are convinced that their actions will be pleasing to God and he'll reward them with 80 virgins when they get to heaven.

Which brings me to another thought.....I wonder if the female suicide bombers believe they'll get 80 virginal men when they get to heaven.

Statistics point that 1 in 5 Americans attend church weekly, I have seen similar stats in AUS.

I am amazed you feel safe to walk outside, cause you have a high chance of being religiously nutted at any time with all these loonies about ... or perhaps when you walk down a dark alley, it's not that 1/5 you are more worried about.

 

[trainspotter]

72 virgins are waiting for you in heaven/wherever if you are a suicidal Muslim. I understand that the women get martyrdom and the family receives approximately $1000 USD for her efforts. Nice work if you can get it but apparently you can only do the job once?

Yes Julia, ktrianta has been very concise in his posts. Unfortunatley he copied and pasted a 300 plus word edict TWICE. Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread. Afterall it seems to be clipping along at a fairly fast pace you know.

Good to see weird is finally calling them by their official name these days "I am amazed you feel safe to walk outside, cause you have a high chance of being religiously nutted at any time with all these loonies about"

Ho hum ... I will continue to worship the almighty dollar.

"You say that money isn't everything
But I'd like to see you live without it
You think you can keep on going living like a king
Oohh babe, but I strongly doubt it"

Courtesy of silverchair from the Frogstomp album (1995)

 

[ktrianta]

Yes Julia, ktrianta has been very concise in his posts. Unfortunatley he copied and pasted a 300 plus word edict TWICE. Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread.

And I stated clearly that that is what i was doing. Quite simply, the same question was asked of me again. So rather than write out my response again I merely referred to it and then cut and pasted it for easier access to anyone who wa sinterested.

 

[trainspotter]

No pyjamas ktrianta. I was just letting my OCD get the better of me. I also gave my reason as to why you did perform such deeds.

Maybe for the benefit of the people who have been left behind in this thread.

Thank you for clarifying what I already knew would be the case.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

I expressed an opinion.....call it whatever you want - a claim, a statement, an argument - it makes no difference to me.

Then it appears if it is only an opinion, ktrianta is equally as justified in holding the belief that God has always been, which seems to be a satisfactory answer for him but not for you.

Do you know of anything that came into existence without being created in some way?

No. I don't know of anything that came into existence without being created. But that is a tautology delimiting the discussion in a way that excludes things that didn't come into existence and have always been.

I could be wrong, but unless something is created then in my opinion it cannot exist.

Created things (contingent entities) are our general experience. This raises the question of whether only created things provide a necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of any one thing, let alone the whole collection of created things. To skip the in-between steps one must finally consider one of two possibilities:
1) an infinite causal regress of contingent entities
2) an uncreated, eternal first cause or ground of being

For myself, I've found no satisfactory reasons to accept (1) as there are too many attendant paradoxes (confer "Hilbert's Hotel") and it violates Occam's razor. (2) has the best explanatory scope and is simpler, thus to be preferred, IMO. Ultimately one should decide as best as one can, which option is preferable.

There are several steps from (2) to any particular definition of God, but God fits in the set of independent (or uncaused) entities as opposed to the set of created (or contingent or caused) things. To ask, "Who or what created God?" is a categorical mistake of the same type as asking, "Has this created thing existed eternally?"

You may not agree with Ktrianta, but what he said is in fact an answer.

 

[bunyip]

Then it appears if it is only an opinion, ktrianta is equally as justified in holding the belief that God has always been, which seems to be a satisfactory answer for him but not for you.


No. I don't know of anything that came into existence without being created. But that is a tautology delimiting the discussion in a way that excludes things that didn't come into existence and have always been.


Created things (contingent entities) are our general experience. This raises the question of whether only created things provide a necessary and sufficient reason for the existence of any one thing, let alone the whole collection of created things. To skip the in-between steps one must finally consider one of two possibilities:
1) an infinite causal regress of contingent entities
2) an uncreated, eternal first cause or ground of being

For myself, I've found no satisfactory reasons to accept (1) as there are too many attendant paradoxes (confer "Hilbert's Hotel") and it violates Occam's razor. (2) has the best explanatory scope and is simpler, thus to be preferred, IMO. Ultimately one should decide as best as one can, which option is preferable.

There are several steps from (2) to any particular definition of God, but God fits in the set of independent (or uncaused) entities as opposed to the set of created (or contingent or caused) things. To ask, "Who or what created God?" is a categorical mistake of the same type as asking, "Has this created thing existed eternally?"

You may not agree with Ktrianta, but what he said is in fact an answer.

I'm amused by you poor buggers who scramble your brains with all your deep thinking mumbo jumbo.

Let me know when you come up with some evidence or proof that the god being worshipped by Christians is anything more than just a figment of their imagination.
Let me know when you come up with proof that God created the world and the human race.
Good luck.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Reply noted as expected. Thanks.

 

[Agentm]

i think the point being painfully demonstrated time and again is the use of force, killing, maiming, and oppression with religion or faith is demonstrated globally and through all religious tangents..

Faith is one thing, and spiritually has a very useful place in the general mental heath of those needing it.

Faith does not always bring rational and conclusive understandings or answers to all, and faith has been, is now ,and will forever more be misused universally.

we dont seem to have adequate "faith police" on this planet, as the ultimate figurehead that the faithful answer to are inevitably not in living in the present in most cases. we have adopted centuries of self regulation which has never had a smooth outcome thus far.

"religious nuts" and their extraordinary claims and behaviors are imho just criminal activity.

abraham seems to be the guy most of these present offshoots stem through

i think abraham tried his best to stop thinking of many gods and look for perhaps one god as the creator.. many variations of his genius philosophy still seem to be relevant to the masses, but imho they are failing also in terms of having scriptures that become binding laws to follow and adopt.. and as these documents become older and society changes, they also can be easily used to both condemn the religion or faith, or can be used by the twisted as the building blocks to guide faithful believers into criminal activity.

ons own faith and beliefs should be respected and imho, the abusers of the faith are far too many and far too protected in all cultures and never brought to account

imho another abraham will surface one day.. but perhaps with some very interesting and strong philosophies that will be far more tangible to the masses universally.

 

[weird]

More religious nuts,



Perhaps we should be careful at church, cause the whole place is full of sinners.

Nutty ... "Love one another as yourself".:bananasmi

 

[trainspotter]

It seems to me that we have a Belief vs Truth altercation. By combining the two we may end up with Knowledge. While MS + Tradeism is coming from his epistemologists point of view and rationalising the debate into building blocks of proof and justifed belief it is like living next to an airport for quite a few of the posters. A lot is going above their heads.

The Aristotelian definition of truth states: "To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."

Place the Rotary 4 Way Test on this thread for a moment; Is it the TRUTH? Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Nope ... not working HUH? Ok then ...

Religious Nut Job = 7th July 2005 London. No 30 bus and the Tube blown up by suicide bombers in the name of their religious beliefs. 56 people died and 700 injured. Islamic Fundamentalists.

Old fashioned Nut Job = April 16th 2007 Virginia. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University massacre by Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many others before committing suicide. He was mentally ill.