U.S Becoming Less Religious, The Observant Become More Devout

[D-rock]

With so many religious people being hateful, using their supposed religious beliefs as an excuse to manipulate others that don't hurt anybody else, not being able to sacrifice comfort or convenience to benefit society even when they have plenty, and generally not really giving a damn or loving other people, especially after they are born, is it any wonder that other people see them and don't want to be like them? I don't know about anybody else, but when I see people who's conduct is disgusting towards their fellow human beings I don't exactly want to emulate them either.

If they really cared about their religion they would actually follow it's tenets instead of picking and warping choice parts as a method of giving themselves more power and wealth, and act with love in a way that shows them as somebody worthy to give esteem to and emulate.

It's sad when there are so many atheist and agnostics that act more Christian than gigantic amounts of people that call themselves Christian.

 

[sean miguel]

That's the issue - every religious person, on some level, KNOWS it's all a lie.

Yet some willingly suffer persecution or death for a lie.

The jihadists who strap bombs to themselves and are scooped up off the street and walls afterwards seem to be convinced.

The heaven's gate cult who drank the kool aid to hitch a ride on the hale-bopp comet seemed to be convinced.

The students in that oregon community college when asked what religion they were could've easily lied but chose not to, knowing full well what it would mean. For a lie?



Sorry, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yet some willingly suffer persecution or death for a lie.

The jihadists who strap bombs to themselves and are scooped up off the street and walls afterwards seem to be convinced.

The heaven's gate cult who drank the kool aid to hitch a ride on the hale-bopp comet seemed to be convinced.

The students in that oregon community college when asked what religion they were could've easily lied but chose not to, knowing full well what it would mean. For a lie?



Sorry, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

animus fox is a gd American treasure!

 

[blakey]

Yet some willingly suffer persecution or death for a lie.

The jihadists who strap bombs to themselves and are scooped up off the street and walls afterwards seem to be convinced.

The heaven's gate cult who drank the kool aid to hitch a ride on the hale-bopp comet seemed to be convinced.

The students in that oregon community college when asked what religion they were could've easily lied but chose not to, knowing full well what it would mean. For a lie?



Sorry, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

they may have believed their religion was true, but people have and continue to believe all types of foolishness


sadly for them, and for the world, religion of every kind is a lie


we only get one shot at life, and people should be encouraged to live it as good as they can

rather than seeking a better, second "life" after death, while in service of a deity that does not exist

 

[sean miguel]

they may have believed their religion was true, but people have and continue to believe all types of foolishness


sadly for them, and for the world, religion of every kind is a lie


we only get one shot at life, and people should be encouraged to live it as good as they can

rather than seeking a better, second "life" after death, while in service of a deity that does not exist

So you're as convinced as them. Because you're stating that with certainty.

I agree that we should live our time here as best as we can.

 

[Johan]

The students in that oregon community college when asked what religion they were could've easily lied but chose not to, knowing full well what it would mean. For a lie?

Yep, for a lie. A lie that told them : "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5 ; 11-12).

Every religion tells its followers that, if they give their lives for it or if they get persecuted for their beliefs, a great reward will be given to them after death. Every religion tells its follower that the best way to die as to die a martyr, that dying a martyr is the best thing that could happen to them, that martyrs will have the best seats in Heaven.

 

[blakey]

So you're as convinced as them. Because you are stating that with certainty.

well, i'm unable to prove, by science, for example that there is no god. many believers say that he is not made of matter, lives outside of normal time and space etc, so is impossible to disprove


using logic there are so many flaws in, for example, christian belief, naturally in other deist beliefs too - i just know most about christianity

i guess you could say i'm an agnostic atheist because i do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and because the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

but i'm happy enough with my atheism that i don't feel tempted to take Pascal's Wager

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager


if anyone has some proof of god's existence i might be interested to hear it - probably on another thread though

 

[sean miguel]

Yep, for a lie. A lie that told them : "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5 ; 11-12).

Every religion tells its followers that, if they give their lives for it or if they get persecuted for their beliefs, a great reward will be given to them after death. Every religion tells its follower that the best way to die as to die a martyr, that dying a martyr is the best thing that could happen to them, that martyrs will have the best seats in Heaven.

but that wasn't the point that was being made. It was that they knew it was a lie yet still willingly suffered for it.


Saul of Tarsus went from killing christians to becoming one and was later put to death for his beliefs. Something happened.

 

[Johan]

There's absolutely not any hisorical prouf of the existence of Saul. As often with biblical figures he may have existed or maybe the figure is actually an addition of several people or maybe it's just all made up.

 

[Straight Shooter]

well, i'm unable to prove, by science, for example that there is no god. many believers say that he is not made of matter, lives outside of normal time and space etc, so is impossible to disprove


using logic there are so many flaws in, for example, christian belief, naturally in other deist beliefs too - i just know most about christianity

i guess you could say i'm an agnostic atheist because i do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and because the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

but i'm happy enough with my atheism that i don't feel tempted to take Pascal's Wager

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager


if anyone has some proof of god's existence i might be interested to hear it - probably on another thread though

Blakey I don't know if you're American, but still you're a goddamn American treasure :thumbsup:

 

[blakey]

Blakey I don't know if you're American, but still you're a goddamn American treasure :thumbsup:

cheers my brother :glugglug:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yeah, we know about Pascal. He was a pussy.

Dipshit links to Pascal's Wager like he is the first to cite it. It's only been used in every discussion of God on every message board in history.

 

[blakey]

my friend blakey links to Pascal's Wager like he is the first to cite it. It's only been used in every discussion of God on every message board in history.

yeah, but i can't be sure everyone is as knowledgable about history and philosophy as you are,

:sarcasm:

so just providing info for those folks who might not have known about it

 

[sean miguel]

There's absolutely not any hisorical prouf of the existence of Saul. As often with biblical figures he may have existed or maybe the figure is actually an addition of several people or maybe it's just all made up.

If by historical proof, you mean extra-biblical sources then you are correct. But someone wrote the epistles. And in his letters he refers to himself as Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus). Maybe he existed, or maybe he was just an amalgam of different people but how many historical figures can you say that for?

 

[ThatRedWing]

So I'm supposed to believe in a being that exist outside of time and space? If you are outside of time and space then by definition you are outside of reality. Let them believe their imaginary sky daddy if they want to.

 

[Jack Davenport]

yeah, but i can't be sure everyone is as knowledgable about history and philosophy as you are,

:sarcasm:

so just providing info for those folks who might not have known about it

I actually laughed at you changing *dipshit to "my friend blakey"

Way to take the piss.

My ancestors left England in 1740 they were from the north country bordering Scotland. So glad they left.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I pose a question to those of you who are religious. It's the famous Hitchen's challenge:

Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever?

 

[Johan]

If by historical proof, you mean extra-biblical sources then you are correct. But someone wrote the epistles. And in his letters he refers to himself as Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus). Maybe he existed, or maybe he was just an amalgam of different people but how many historical figures can you say that for?

Historical figures are historical because there are proofs that they actually existed.

 

[sean miguel]

Historical figures are historical because there are proofs that they actually existed.

How about their writings? What serious biblical scholar is denying that the Paul/Saul of the new testament ever existed? As I said, someone wrote those letters in the New Testament. That person said his name was Paul. So what is more likely? We can appeal to Occam's razor here. A religion swept across the entire developed world based on someone (Jesus) and his followers who never existed?

What is more likely?

 

[ThatRedWing]

You mean the writings of people that never witnessed any of the supposed events that took place in the gospels much less an actual person named Jesus? The gospels themselves were written between 50 and 150 years after the supposed events. Christianity was no more than several different sects with widely different views until almost the middle of the fourth century. The canonization of the bible was an attempt to unify the different sects in a dying Roman Empire. "Christians" still can't agree on an interpretation of the book the ties them together.

If the religions can ever agree on one god then we can decide if there is any validity to the claims. I'll settle for a single interpretation of the Christian god. I would also like a single interpretation of Allah.