This one actually IS for the Christians.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Saya

Neopaganism, dude! And Christianity borrowed A LOT from pagans, Christmas and Easter being obvious but if I'm not mistaken the idea of hell is Greek in origin. Even with defunct religions you can see where they have greatly influenced other religions that exist to this day. And while the religion changes, religion itself will never go away.

And Japan had its huge problems with religion too, State Shinto was a factor in whipping up nationalism, as according to its teachings the Emperor was a god incarnate, and I think was banned after World War 2. Its a wonderful thing yes, but the reasons behind it aren't exactly wonderful.

Neopaganism isn't what I'd call "relevent." And yes, Christianity borrowed many pagan traditions but it largely warped them out of recognition. (Hell is from Norse mythology, or at least the word is.)

I'm well aware of State Shinto, and how religious fanaticism and militarism were mostly burnt out of Japan in WW2 along with many of her cities and people. And even now they don't entirely lack religiosity, there are still things SGI and the truly bizarre aberration that is Aun Shinrikyo. But 9 times out of 10 if you walk up to a Japanese guy on the street and ask him his religion, he'll reply "Buddhist" but that doesn't really mean anything to him other than what kind of funeral he's going to have when he dies. He isn't going to suicide bomb any infidels, shoot any abortion doctors, or fight against teaching proper science in school. This is how religion should be worldwide.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by viscus

(Hell is from Norse mythology, or at least the word is.)

I am really really disappointed in you right now.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Alan

I am really really disappointed in you right now.

My humblest apologies. I was unaware that the word "hell" actually has proto-Germanic origins and doesn't originally come from old Norse. Whatever may I do to win back your favor, oh wise one who is so worthy of respect?

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Alan

I am really really disappointed in you right now.

Oh my fucking god....

[Alan]

OH my fucking god indeed. You even complain when I see that OTHER people are objectively and absolutely wrong?
Why do you have such an unhealthy relationship with truth and criticism?

[vindicatedxjin]

It's not the truth and criticism that bothers me. It's your annoying sense of correctiveness and superiority.

[Alan]

It was a very stupid commentary. Stop being so whiny.

[vindicatedxjin]

Stop being a know it all.

[Sinjob]

Jin: I'd like to glare at Jillian's signature. Do you think ANYTHING you say, even pointing out his consdiderably elitist tendencies, will hold even a drop of water from your puddle of knowledge?

OH AND I BUHHHLEAVE THE PROPER TERM IS KNOW-IT-ALL.

[vindicatedxjin]

Sin, I am quite aware of his signature, I even told him to keep it on there, after he offered to take it off. You and others who use it as a crutch is silly, since it is usually done when conversing about a topic that has nothing to do with it.

[Sinjob]

Jin.

You're trying too hard to sound smart.

I'd rather you stick with your usual ditzyness, because this is really pathetic. You're not any different from how you were months ago...you're just acting like you are. I know exactly where you're coming from. Believe me. When you're truly enlightened you won't feel the need to impress us.

p.s. don't try and bullshit ME, the king of bullshitters.

[vindicatedxjin]

Dude.

I'm not trying to sound smart.

Oh and I might seem ditzy, but trust me if you ever met me in person, (which I pray never, ever happens.) You would realize that i'm that I would fall on the opposite side of the spectrum.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Because the contradictions that were pointed out specifically about what Jesus said was either not in context, and makes way more sense therein, or are completely up to interpretation, requiring study and debate or don't really matter in the long run. Does the fact that the disciples went to Jerusalem or Galilee to see him after his resurrection completely invalidate the principle of turning the other cheek? Small details get muddled up the longer you wait to write things down. Does it matter if Buddha saw the morning star or not?

1) Then why the hell didn't you argue that in the first place? By all means, if you feel the contradictions in the OP were wrong, tell us why.

2) As I said above, invalidating the authenticity of Jesus's story does not invalidate teachings like "turn the other cheek". It invalidates the idea that he was the divine, and removes the divine mandate on them.

Without divinity attached to them, Jesus's teachings can be approached rationally, and properly cherry-picked for worthy ideas. As long as people think he's the Son of God, it all must be the perfect truth, and it must not be questioned.

That there are many Christians, some known as theologists, who really try to glean what they can from the text, like everyone else with a religion that has a sacred text.

And there are many people that really try to glean what they can from Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, and Twilight. Does that make them real? The human mind can easily perform the mental gymnastics necessary to read in things that aren't there just as easily. That doesn't mean that the ideas found there are worthy ideas.

How? There's a million years between a staunch Catholic and a Universal Unitarian, I don't see how the UU's are answerable for the Pope being a dickhead. Same with Muslims, I'm not going to harass my Sufi neighbour because some mass murdering fuckhead in the middle east wants to kill Westerners.

You do have something of a point here, however, as Kontan pointed out the moderates have a responsibility to actively work to denounce, mock, and stifle the radicals who claim to be of the same faith.

I wouldn't advocate harassing your neighbor because that would be an insane over-reaction. I might, given the proper context, (say a web-based discussion forum) attack the validity of his ideas, and point to said radicals as a reason he might want to re-think the supposedly "peaceful" teachings of his faith.

I'm guessing ten or twenty before the rest of the world moves on and China gets comfy in the superpower seat, but its all speculation. Could happen tomorrow, could happen never. I'm quite frankly expecting to live to see it happen.

Maybe, but consider this: Fox News is coming to Canada, and every insane, ultra-conservative radical is about to have their voice bolstered by one of the most effective propaganda networks the world has ever seen.

This ideology is not one which is just going to be content with America, they are looking to expand into your back yard. Give it a few years, and see if you still think I'm over-reacting about the radicalism in America.

According to very old religious laws, the same that Jesus tend to break. If you follow the lines that Jesus was right, "he who without sin cast the first stone." He broke that line of thinking. It makes perfect sense for cherry-pickers to just view it as a barbaric ancient law for a people who existed thousands of years ago.

Yeah, and he also told his followers to sell/abandon their possessions, leave their friends, families, and jobs, and follow his homeless-ass around the desert. (And also got a handful of the killed) Consider that. I mean you don't believe he was the Son of God, right? So then logically, he was just some guy using his charisma to get people to dedicate their lives to him. Put that in a modern context. How would you react if some hippy-evangelist moved into town and got your brother, or parent, or best friend to give up all their possesions and road trip around the country in their van?

Like it or not, Jesus preached fanaticism. It had a strong strain of feel-good, peace and love fanaticism, but it was fanaticism none the less.

I'd argue that many people need philosophies as a guidance. If it comes from Jesus, Confucius or Plato, what do I care, as long as they are being good?

As I've said, Jesus's philosophy is not like Confucius's or Platos. It is not reason-based and thus is far more dangerous and potentially destructive than Kant or Nietzsche or Plato.

How can I say its wrong, if it inspires them to be better people? I think I'd still be a good person if I wasn't a Buddhist, but I would not be the person I am now, and I'm not sure if I'd be as good as a person or nearly as open minded as I am. Its not a crutch, but the lives, wisdom and teachings of other Buddhists certainly inspire me, as do other people in other religions. But its a hard thing to explain because its so extremely personal, I can't describe what religious experience feels like. And I suspect that other practitioner would argue the same thing. You can study all you want about other religions, but a practitioner of that religion is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of what they follow than you ever can. You can point out inconsistencies in a text, but when faith isn't reliant on a book, is beyond words, you can't break that kind of faith. And if they're not bothering anyone, there's absolutely no point in trying to.

See, right here. Your faith is not based on reason, "it's beyond words". Which is really just another way of saying it's based on emotion. It's an emotion that I can't experience unless I think just like you do, and therefor it cannont be debated on equal terms with an 'outsider'.

Saya, the above is the exact same kind of non-argument that Evangelicals use when they try to tell me that I need to embrace Jesus's love because I simply cannot understand their religion the way they do. Then when I rebut their points they fall back on how It's pointless because I "can't break their faith". What you have said is precisely why religion needs to be made irrelevant, because you're basically saying: "You can't understand me, and you can't argue with me" What does that sound like to you?

As far as "Not bothering anyone" I'm really not that concerned with breaking your faith, or HP's faith, because you're not a threat. As Gothicus pointed out your political allies. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I think your ideas are good, nor will I refrain from challenging you on them, should the opportunity arise.

Mostly this can apply to what I wrote above, the value of religion is too personal for you to vote the church away or shame practitioners. And its not necessary....[Blah blah blah, America]...Again, I'm all for calling out the fanatics, its saying that absolutely everyone must abandon their faith because Jesus could have appeared in Jerusalem or Galilee is absolutely and utterly futile and pointless, not to mention burning a lot of bridges. HP and others like him are on your side, why distance yourself?

See above. I'm not interested in pretending that I agree with someone else's silly ideas out of politeness. That is a disservice to you guys. I'm going to call-out vind for her belief in past-lives, just like I'm going to call out HP for his belief in Yahweh's quazi-mortal avatar wandering around the desert on a mule, healing people with his hands and taking revenge on fig trees.

I don't want to "vote the church away" so stop trying to stuff my argument with straw. I recognize that religion is not the root of humanities current problem, but it is a dead branch that needs to be safely pruned before it falls on someone. I've already pointed out that all the good things you get from religious faith can be found elsewhere, and the problems inherent with giving credence, any credence to that faith, so why cling to it? because right now the only answer you people have come up with is: "It makes me feel good" and that's not good enough. That's not good enough by a longshot.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Because the contradictions that were pointed out specifically about what Jesus said was either not in context, and makes way more sense therein, or are completely up to interpretation, requiring study and debate or don't really matter in the long run. Does the fact that the disciples went to Jerusalem or Galilee to see him after his resurrection completely invalidate the principle of turning the other cheek? Small details get muddled up the longer you wait to write things down. Does it matter if Buddha saw the morning star or not?

1) Then why the hell didn't you argue that in the first place? By all means, if you feel the contradictions in the OP were wrong, tell us why.

2) As I said above, invalidating the authenticity of Jesus's story does not invalidate teachings like "turn the other cheek". It invalidates the idea that he was the divine, and removes the divine mandate on them.

Without divinity attached to them, Jesus's teachings can be approached rationally, and properly cherry-picked for worthy ideas. As long as people think he's the Son of God, it all must be the perfect truth, and it must not be questioned.

That there are many Christians, some known as theologists, who really try to glean what they can from the text, like everyone else with a religion that has a sacred text.

And there are many people that really try to glean what they can from Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, and Twilight. Does that make them real? The human mind can easily perform the mental gymnastics necessary to read in things that aren't there just as easily.

How? There's a million years between a staunch Catholic and a Universal Unitarian, I don't see how the UU's are answerable for the Pope being a dickhead. Same with Muslims, I'm not going to harass my Sufi neighbour because some mass murdering fuckhead in the middle east wants to kill Westerners.

You do have something of a point here, however, as Kontan pointed out the moderates have a responsibility to actively work to denounce, mock, and stifle the radicals who claim to be of the same faith.

I wouldn't advocate harassing your neighbor because that would be an insane over-reaction. I might, given the proper context, (say a web-based discussion forum) attack the validity of his ideas, and point to said radicals as a reason he might want to re-think the supposedly "peaceful" teachings of his faith.

I'm guessing ten or twenty before the rest of the world moves on and China gets comfy in the superpower seat, but its all speculation. Could happen tomorrow, could happen never. I'm quite frankly expecting to live to see it happen.

Maybe, but consider this: Fox News is coming to Canada, and every insane, ultra-conservative radical is about to have their voice bolstered by one of the most effective propaganda networks the world has ever seen.

This ideology is not one which is just going to be content with America, they are looking to expand into your back yard. Give it a few years, and see if you still think I'm over-reacting about the radicalism in America.

According to very old religious laws, the same that Jesus tend to break. If you follow the lines that Jesus was right, "he who without sin cast the first stone." He broke that line of thinking. It makes perfect sense for cherry-pickers to just view it as a barbaric ancient law for a people who existed thousands of years ago.

Yeah, and he also told his followers to sell/abandon their possessions, leave their friends, families, and jobs, and follow his homeless-ass around the desert. (And also got a handful of the killed) Consider that. I mean you don't believe he was the Son of God, right? So then logically, he was just some guy using his charisma to get people to dedicate their lives to him. Put that in a modern context. How would you react if some hippy-evangelist moved into town and got your brother, or parent, or best friend to give up all their possesions and road trip around the country in their van?

Like it or not, Jesus preached fanaticism. It had a strong strain of feel-good, peace and love fanaticism, but it was fanaticism none the less.

I'd argue that many people need philosophies as a guidance. If it comes from Jesus, Confucius or Plato, what do I care, as long as they are being good?

As I've said, Jesus's philosophy is not like Confucius's or Platos. It is not reason-based and thus is far more dangerous and potentially destructive than Kant or Nietzsche or Plato.

How can I say its wrong, if it inspires them to be better people? I think I'd still be a good person if I wasn't a Buddhist, but I would not be the person I am now, and I'm not sure if I'd be as good as a person or nearly as open minded as I am. Its not a crutch, but the lives, wisdom and teachings of other Buddhists certainly inspire me, as do other people in other religions. But its a hard thing to explain because its so extremely personal, I can't describe what religious experience feels like. And I suspect that other practitioner would argue the same thing. You can study all you want about other religions, but a practitioner of that religion is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of what they follow than you ever can. You can point out inconsistencies in a text, but when faith isn't reliant on a book, is beyond words, you can't break that kind of faith. And if they're not bothering anyone, there's absolutely no point in trying to.

See, right here. Your faith is not based on reason, "it's beyond words". Which is really just another way of saying it's based on emotion. It's an emotion that I can't experience unless I think just like you do, and therefor it cannont be debated on equal terms with an 'outsider'.

Saya, the above is the exact same kind of non-argument that Evangelicals use when they try to tell me that I need to embrace Jesus's love because I simply cannot understand their religion the way they do. Then when I rebut their points they fall back on how It's pointless because I "can't break their faith". What you have said is precisely why religion needs to be made irrelevant, because you're basically saying: "You can't understand me, and you can't argue with me" What does that sound like to you?

As far as "Not bothering anyone" I'm really not that concerned with breaking your faith, or HP's faith, because you're not a threat. As Gothicus pointed out your political allies. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I think your ideas are good, nor will I refrain from challenging you on them, should the opportunity arise.

Mostly this can apply to what I wrote above, the value of religion is too personal for you to vote the church away or shame practitioners. And its not necessary....[Blah blah blah, America]...Again, I'm all for calling out the fanatics, its saying that absolutely everyone must abandon their faith because Jesus could have appeared in Jerusalem or Galilee is absolutely and utterly futile and pointless, not to mention burning a lot of bridges. HP and others like him are on your side, why distance yourself?

See above. I'm not interested in pretending that I agree with someone else's silly ideas out of politeness. That is a disservice to you guys. I'm going to call-out vind for her belief in past-lives, just like I'm going to call out HP for his belief in Yahweh's quazi-mortal avatar wandering around the desert on a mule, healing people with his hands and taking revenge on fig trees.

I don't want to "vote the church away" so stop trying to stuff my argument with straw. I recognize that religion is not the root of humanities current problem, but it is a dead branch that needs to be safely pruned before it falls on someone. I've already pointed out that all the good things you get from religious faith can be found elsewhere, and the problems inherent with giving credence, any credence to that faith, so why cling to it? because right now the only answer you people have come up with is: "It makes me feel good" and that's not good enough.

[Despanan]

Shit, sorry for the double post...I have no idea how that happened.

[KontanKarite]

Take for example, Richard Dawkins taking on the Pope when the Catholic League said Atheists should apologize for Hitler and others. As if atheism was a fucking quantifiable group of people that you could easily target cause all atheists are the same. Look at what we do to the man for speaking up?

"I agree with you Dawkins, but you're an incendiary dick!" THIS SHIT is even coming from atheists that embrace the idea of good manners. Of course Dawkin's speeches are incendiary. He's saying that believers are completely wrong! And even yet, those that agree with him have to put in some comment about his character to distance themselves from the image that he creates by simply speaking up for atheism.

He's not actually a dick. He's just an atheist who speaks publicly about it.

[Despanan]

And consider this.

Even in New York City. Arguably one of the most diverse, multicultural, Liberal and accepting cities in the world. If I were to get up on the train and start preaching atheist thought, I would be in danger of being assaulted. If an evangelical does it, people just ignore him.

If there was going to be a massive atheist rally in central park, where we all talked about how you can be a good person without god, people would go NUTS.

Even the moderates would most likely join with the radicals to fight an "assault on their faith" and the liberal and even other atheists would sternly disapprove of us for "being incendiary".

That is a double standard that I'm not comfortable with.

[Sinjob]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Dude.

I'm not trying to sound smart.

Oh and I might seem ditzy, but trust me if you ever met me in person, (which I pray never, ever happens.) You would realize that i'm that I would fall on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I rest my case.

New sig, anyone?

[vindicatedxjin]

This is very true... and happens everywhere. Here at my job I have a devout baptist co-worker. Me and our tech guy were talking, and he had asked if I still went to church...when I told him that I stopped, he was genuinely happy and told me he was glad to see me growing as a person. Well my baptist co worker didn't like this...and when he was gone she said that she couldn't wait to see him in hell while looking downward from heaven and that she didn't think it was right for him to say something like that in front of her. I was like the fuck? It's okay for you to want to see someone burn in hell...when all they did was tell someone that they were glad to see someone change they're outlook on life. That's some fucked up shit.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Sinjob

I rest my case.

-_- I apologize for my horrible spelling/grammar.

That is all.

[Sinjob]

I'd rather you apologize for the endless pointless threads.

[Despanan]

Dude, what's up with you today Sin? Did Vind piss in your cheerios?

[vindicatedxjin]

Clearly.......

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

1) Then why the hell didn't you argue that in the first place? By all means, if you feel the contradictions in the OP were wrong, tell us why.

That was my very first post, and I already said there's no way I'm going through the list, thats far more work than its worth.

2) As I said above, invalidating the authenticity of Jesus's story does not invalidate teachings like "turn the other cheek". It invalidates the idea that he was the divine, and removes the divine mandate on them.

How? If humans fucked up a detail here and there about what the disciples did afterwards, how does that invalidate the idea that Jesus is divine? Its already a leap of faith to believe it, there's no logic used to debunk.

Without divinity attached to them, Jesus's teachings can be approached rationally, and properly cherry-picked for worthy ideas. As long as people think he's the Son of God, it all must be the perfect truth, and it must not be questioned.

Unless they believe Jesus wrote the book himself there's not much reason to believe that the Bible is divine truth and must not ever be questioned.

You do have something of a point here, however, as Kontan pointed out the moderates have a responsibility to actively work to denounce, mock, and stifle the radicals who claim to be of the same faith.

Not at all. To put this in another way, I don't think Kontan as a goth should have a responsibility to preach to the world that he's not going to shoot up a school. Why should everyone of us be a representative of the groups we represent? I'm not responsible for any dickhead lama who says homosexuality is a sin, hell even when I tried to explain why the Dalai Lama is a dickhead for ridiculous reasons you refrained from mocking him.

I wouldn't advocate harassing your neighbor because that would be an insane over-reaction. I might, given the proper context, (say a web-based discussion forum) attack the validity of his ideas, and point to said radicals as a reason he might want to re-think the supposedly "peaceful" teachings of his faith.

But the Sufi faith is so different and from what I know actually is very peaceful, and if his personal faith is completely peaceful its a total asshole thing to do to say "well you're still spiritually responsible for suicide bombers, you know." We did pull this shit with a Muslim member before, didn't stop her faith but she hasn't really been a regular since. You just end up alienating people and looking like a jackass.

Maybe, but consider this: Fox News is coming to Canada, and every insane, ultra-conservative radical is about to have their voice bolstered by one of the most effective propaganda networks the world has ever seen.

This ideology is not one which is just going to be content with America, they are looking to expand into your back yard. Give it a few years, and see if you still think I'm over-reacting about the radicalism in America.

I didn't post it afterwards but the CRTC blocked it and an online petition, while I agree doesn't do much, got a lot of press. The guy with SunTV, Kory Teneycke, who's pushing for Fox News allegedly put in fake names(he says he as a source who told stuff only the person who did it would know), Avaaz, the group who organizes the petition, pushed for an investigation and he quit over it. Margaret Atwood signed it and even wrote an op-ed defending it. So, Teneycke quit less than a day after they announced a criminal investigation, everyone's in an uproar, its very likely that the CRTC won't give them the licence they want, so while it still might be made, it won't be forced on everyone's cable package. Canadians are for the most part allergic to that kind of shit, we got a Conservative minority government that is fucking things up but the only reason the Liberals lost their majority is because of the sponsorship scandal, no one feels they can trust the Liberals anymore, the NDP is gaining seats but its going to be a while before they can rival the Liberals. The Conservative party as it is isn't actually very old, it used to be the Progressive Conservatives, and previous leaders of the PC aren't too happy that Harper took the Progressive away. To make a point on how different the PCs are from Republicans, Newfoundland still has a PC premier and it was the PC party who legalized gay marriage here before it became recognized federally. The Conservatives are more scary but its hard to find people around here who voted for them because of Christianity or even realize just how different they are from the PCs. The looney ones maybe but even they still vote Liberal much of the time, its more regional than ideological.

Yeah, and he also told his followers to sell/abandon their possessions, leave their friends, families, and jobs, and follow his homeless-ass around the desert. (And also got a handful of the killed) Consider that. I mean you don't believe he was the Son of God, right? So then logically, he was just some guy using his charisma to get people to dedicate their lives to him. Put that in a modern context. How would you react if some hippy-evangelist moved into town and got your brother, or parent, or best friend to give up all their possesions and road trip around the country in their van?

Like it or not, Jesus preached fanaticism. It had a strong strain of feel-good, peace and love fanaticism, but it was fanaticism none the less.

It would be hypocritical for me to agree with you here, as Buddha did the exact same thing. Regardless, it was only his disciples he asked to do this. When he cured the Gerasene demoniac, the demoniac asked if he could join him, but Jesus said he should return to his friends. All of the people he healed he told them to go to the temple and rejoin the society that cast them out. Buddha demanded all his monks live in poverty and celibacy. Jesus got a leg up on him on that regard.

As I've said, Jesus's philosophy is not like Confucius's or Platos. It is not reason-based and thus is far more dangerous and potentially destructive than Kant or Nietzsche or Plato.

Yup, telling people to keep the church and state separate was a terrible, horrible thing. " Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." I know you're really trying to twist the story of Jesus around right now but its not exactly dynamite stuff. The messiahs that came before Jesus were mostly violent and more fitting to Paul's and Constantine's vision, but for some reason the non-violent, loving Jesus fit the bill. Ever read The Brothers Karamazov, specifically the tale of The Grand Inquisitor that the athiest brother Ivan tells his mystic brother Alyosha? Its about Jesus coming back down to earth during the inquisition, and knowing who he is, the Inquisitor sentences him to be burned, and gives reasons why the Church should hate Jesus. Jesus wouldn't allow the shit they pulled, and they viewed him as weak. In the end, Jesus kisses the Inquisitor, who while he doesn't change his mind, allows him to live. As a religious man that was a pretty heavy thing for Dostoevsky to write, and he had a really good point. Stephen Fry made the same point in his speech about the Catholic Church, if he was around today he'd be excommunicated. If people want to return to the root of early Christianity and follow only Jesus, good on them, solves a lot of problems with the Church.

See, right here. Your faith is not based on reason, "it's beyond words". Which is really just another way of saying it's based on emotion. It's an emotion that I can't experience unless I think just like you do, and therefor it cannont be debated on equal terms with an 'outsider'.

Saya, the above is the exact same kind of non-argument that Evangelicals use when they try to tell me that I need to embrace Jesus's love because I simply cannot understand their religion the way they do. Then when I rebut their points they fall back on how It's pointless because I "can't break their faith". What you have said is precisely why religion needs to be made irrelevant, because you're basically saying: "You can't understand me, and you can't argue with me" What does that sound like to you?

Evangelicals are easy to debunk because of the very reason this thread was started, if the Bible is literal, its full of holes. Therefore, it cannot be literal. They must think about their faith for once in their lives, assuming they're receptive to argument at all. You can't argue against something you don't know, its unreachable, but when its something material, you can.

As far as "Not bothering anyone" I'm really not that concerned with breaking your faith, or HP's faith, because you're not a threat. As Gothicus pointed out your political allies. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I think your ideas are good, nor will I refrain from challenging you on them, should the opportunity arise.

Its fine to debate about religious things, but saying the shit you're saying is pretty fucking alienating.

See above. I'm not interested in pretending that I agree with someone else's silly ideas out of politeness. That is a disservice to you guys. I'm going to call-out vind for her belief in past-lives, just like I'm going to call out HP for his belief in Yahweh's quazi-mortal avatar wandering around the desert on a mule, healing people with his hands and taking revenge on fig trees.

And how do you propose to do that when it clearly doesn't matter to him whether Jesus was in Jerusalem or Galilee?

continued in next post

[Saya]

I don't want to "vote the church away" so stop trying to stuff my argument with straw. I recognize that religion is not the root of humanities current problem, but it is a dead branch that needs to be safely pruned before it falls on someone. I've already pointed out that all the good things you get from religious faith can be found elsewhere, and the problems inherent with giving credence, any credence to that faith, so why cling to it? because right now the only answer you people have come up with is: "It makes me feel good" and that's not good enough. That's not good enough by a longshot.

Religion has fallen on people over and over and still continues to flourish. It caters to a human need that philosophy cannot fulfill for a lot of people. Its the fanatics that can infest a health forest.


My mother is Catholic. She's been Catholic all her life. She believes very much in gay rights and disagrees with the Vatican so much she goes to an Anglican church now, but at night she still prays to saints, still has her rosaries, she was glued to the tv when John Paul II died, in practice she's very much still Catholic. And there's nothing that would change that. My atheist uncle has tried very hard, believe you me, but it won't ever change her mind. Hell his wife has to live with him never shutting up about how stupid she is for it but she still goes to church. I once had a boyfriend who believes that humans will evolve and be able to insert our minds into computers and live forever, I thought it was the stupidest thing I ever heard and I told him so but hey, I still loved him. There's a good, honest debate that can be done and should be done, don't get me wrong, I hate it when people don't think critically about their religion, but after a point it becomes so divisive and futile, when its a harmless notion there's no reason to be pushy, you just got to live with it.