Something that has been bugging me...

[Young Guns 11]

Why is it, that the so called study of ancient Greek Gods, is called "mythology"?

Why are they referred to as myths? Will one day christianity and other religions be referred to as myths aswell?

Thoughts hmm?

[mandela]

I would've thought this was rather obvious.


One day Christianity will be promoted from pure fiction to myth.


Do you know how many religions there have been since the dawn of mankind?


Estimated at over 850'000.


But obviously only Christianity/Islam/whatever/delete as appropriate is true.


People who believe 'their' religion is true are mentally ill.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

Man has always lived with a narrative to help explain his origins...be it religion or legend (Greek Mythology). You cannot divorce humanity from the requirement to understand their existence.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

What alternative system do you propose that can give man his moral fundamentals?

[The Wengerbabies]

Because people are hypocritical and stupid.

You can forgive the Ancient Greeks for believing in Zeus, Aphrodite, Aries etc. But the religious nutjobs of today have no excuse for believing in god.

I guess a Christian would say that they don't believe in Allah or Krishna etc. but this is a weak argument as they don't see Islam or Hinduism as a myth.

Another thing that bothers me is Christians generally pick and chose what they want to believe/follow from Christianity. If they do this why don't they pick the good things of each religion, why restrict themselves to just Christianity?

In short religious people are stupid.

FWIW imo god/Jesus is just as much a myth as Zeus/Hercules.

[mandela]

What alternative system do you propose that can give man his moral fundamentals?

Common sense.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

Common sense.

A subjective construct based on parochially dependent cultural/societal/popular norms.....in other words the way to chaos. A mad man sees himself talking common sense..should we establish a system of governance based on his principles?

[mandela]

A mad man sees himself talking common sense..should we establish a system of governance based on his principles?

Is that not how all religions develop?

[The Wengerbabies]

A subjective construct based on parochially dependent cultural/societal/popular norms.....in other words the way to chaos. A mad man sees himself talking common sense..should we establish a system of governance based on his principles?
Common sense means what people commonly see as sense. A mad man's idea of sense would not represent the common man.

[The Wengerbabies]

Is that now how all religions develop?
:lol:

[Sirjackofwilshere]

Common sense means what people commonly see as sense. A mad man's idea of sense would not represent the common man.

You miss the point. To oneself common sense is a self-evident abstract. Therefore a person or group can believe they are inherently right whilst another group maybe as self-assured whilst holding a diamterically opposing set of ideas that are right in accordance with their "common sense".

People are unequal physically, socio-economically etc etc...therefore the idea that the powerful can subject the weak and take advantage of them seems to be a sensible idea..it makes perfect sense..in fact most of the great, ancient philosophers agreed with this. The manifestations of this has changed over the years from the ancient Egyptians through to the Nazis.. .the fact that a "self evident abstract" (common sense) is subject to change dependent on time, location, culture, etc etc has resulted in these eras of great injustice.

This is where religion comes in..it mandates a set divine morals and rights that are unchanging and passed on from generation to generation. In fact the moral underpinings of secular societies, put forward as ideals of governance by athiests, are all derived from religion.

[The Wengerbabies]

You miss the point. To oneself common sense is a self-evident abstract. Therefore a person or group can believe they are inherently right whilst another group maybe as self-assured whilst holding a diamterically opposing set of ideas that are right in accordance with their "common sense".

People are unequal physically, socio-economically etc etc...therefore the idea that the powerful can subject the weak and take advantage of them seems to be a sensible idea..it makes perfect sense..in fact most of the great, ancient philosophers agreed with this. The manifestations of this has changed over the years from the ancient Egyptians through to the Nazis.. .the fact that a "self evident abstract" (common sense) is subject to change dependent on time, location, culture, etc etc has resulted in these eras of great injustice.

This is where religion comes in..it mandates a set divine morals and rights that are unchanging and passed on from generation to generation. In fact the moral underpinings of secular societies, put forward as ideals of governance by athiests, are all derived from religion.
tl;dr

One persons idea of sense cannot be classed as common sense.

/discussion.

[WMUG]

What alternative system do you propose that can give man his moral fundamentals?

So you're saying that if you weren't a Christian, you'd have no idea what morality is? The only thing keeping you from committing obviously wrong things is your religion? You're so mentally weak you can't think for yourself?

Didn't think so. Religion isn't necessary to have a moral compass. I'm an atheist. I've never murdered anyone, raped anyone, committed robbery or been in trouble with the law. Neither have any atheists I know. I do, however, know a few Christians who've been arrested for assault. And you agree that paedophilia is morally reprehensible, yes? Please point me to the passage in the Bible that prohibits it.
I'm not saying Christianity is prohibitive of a moral code, I'm saying it doesn't give one. You cannot say that Christianity or religion in general is the necessary moral code for humanity. Humans provide their own moral code. Religion doesn't help.

[MissHandbag]

So you're saying that if you weren't a Christian, you'd have no idea what morality is? The only thing keeping you from committing obviously wrong things is your religion? You're so mentally weak you can't think for yourself?

Didn't think so. Religion isn't necessary to have a moral compass. I'm an atheist. I've never murdered anyone, raped anyone, committed robbery or been in trouble with the law. Neither have any atheists I know. I do, however, know a few Christians who've been arrested for assault. And you agree that paedophilia is morally reprehensible, yes? Please point me to the passage in the Bible that prohibits it.
I'm not saying Christianity is prohibitive of a moral code, I'm saying it doesn't give one. You cannot say that Christianity or religion in general is the necessary moral code for humanity. Humans provide their own moral code. Religion doesn't help.

I like this post though have to say I know as many criminal atheists as not. Absolutely agree with humanity and moral code coming innately rather than proscribed.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

tl;dr

One persons idea of sense cannot be classed as common sense.

/discussion.

Yes - you can't rule a society by this abstract.



So you're saying that if you weren't a Christian, you'd have no idea what morality is? The only thing keeping you from committing obviously wrong things is your religion? You're so mentally weak you can't think for yourself?

Didn't think so. Religion isn't necessary to have a moral compass. I'm an atheist.

The fact that you have morals doesn't negate the need for religion. You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

And this idea that anyone should be able to form and hold a set of moral belief is rubbish. You are insinuating that the morals that have been subject to debate for thousands of years, by the greatest minds history has known are essentially self-evident. What about the unintelligent? The new generations of peoples? What about the changes that humanity and civilizations are subject to?? What determines that morals will be the same ones as they are now, forever?

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

[Toronto Gooner]

Is that not how all religions develop?
Religions develop to allow a small group of (almost exclusively) men control of the rest of the people.

[The Wengerbabies]

You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

Many years ago the dude who made up the crap in the bible had moral beliefs, which the majority agree with, he just wrote it down.

[Toronto Gooner]

What alternative system do you propose that can give man his moral fundamentals?
I believe that you are getting the cart before the horse. I would posit that religions incorporate the moral fundamentals of the society of the day to further reinforce them, rather than religions providing the morals.

[The Wengerbabies]

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

:haha:

Good one.

[Toronto Gooner]

Yes - you can't rule a society by this abstract.




The fact that you have morals doesn't negate the need for religion. You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

And this idea that anyone should be able to form and hold a set of moral belief is rubbish. You are insinuating that the morals that have been subject to debate for thousands of years, by the greatest minds history has known are essentially self-evident. What about the unintelligent? The new generations of peoples? What about the changes that humanity and civilizations are subject to?? What determines that morals will be the same ones as they are now, forever?

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.
My atheism is not dependent on religion, nor are my morals. In fact I believe that the opposite is true, which is why religion is becoming so irrelevant in many western societies.

Are the morals of Islam better or worse than those of Christianity or Judaism or Buddism? Or are they different because Islam developed in 6th and 6th century Arabian peninsula society where having multiple wives was acceptable and where women were hidden away from sight to prevent other men trying to steal them?

[Xhaka Can’t]

Religions develop to allow a small group of (almost exclusively) small men control the rest of the people.

That is equally true of Internet message boards

[Sirjackofwilshere]

I believe that you are getting the cart before the horse. I would posit that religions incorporate the moral fundamentals of the society of the day to further reinforce them, rather than religions providing the morals.

Looking at modern Europe the enlightment only happened a few hundred years ago, besides even then womans rights, minority rights and a whole host of other civil rights where only "secured" in the last century. Religious fundamentals have been around for thousands of years.


:haha:

Good one.

Ibn Sina, Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Farabi...the Islamic golden age, Thomas aquinus etc etc ..

[WMUG]

The fact that you have morals doesn't negate the need for religion. You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

And this idea that anyone should be able to form and hold a set of moral belief is rubbish. You are insinuating that the morals that have been subject to debate for thousands of years, by the greatest minds history has known are essentially self-evident. What about the unintelligent? The new generations of peoples? What about the changes that humanity and civilizations are subject to?? What determines that morals will be the same ones as they are now, forever?

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

You seriously believe that, don't you? *sigh*
Even if it were true, you think Christianity has the answers? It's one of the religions that has caused women to be seen as second class citizens, the remnants of which still exist today. It's one of the religions that forbids people marrying the man they love simply because they also have a Y chromosome. And if you want to follow the Christian moral code, you'd better take off that multi-fabric shirt you're wearing. Ever eaten a prawn? Repent now! And Christians are told to try to live a godly life, yes? Your God spends his entire life eternally torturing those who don't agree with him. Fuck that shit.

And my atheism does not depend on religion in any way. If religion didn't exist I'd be an atheist, but no one would call it that, it would just be 'reason'.

[The Wengerbabies]

It's one of the religions that has caused women to be seen as second class citizens, the remnants of which still exist today. It's one of the religions that forbids people marrying the man they love simply because they also have a Y chromosome.

These were good aspects of Christianity tbf.

[Toronto Gooner]

Looking at modern Europe the enlightment only happened a few hundred years ago, besides even then womans rights, minority rights and a whole host of other civil rights where only "secured" in the last century. Religious fundamentals have been around for thousands of years.

I am not certain what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that women's "rights, minority rights and a whole host of other civil rights" were secured a long time after the "religious fundamentals were incorporated (or espoused) in the various religious tracts? If so, then you are making a strong case for the fact that the so-called religious fundamentals no longer reflect the morals of human society, and thus religion is a pointless endeavour.

But seriously, I do not contest the fact that the so-called religious fundamentals have been around for millennia. Where you and I differ is the origin of those fundamentals. You seem to believe that they have been handed down from some all-seeing, all-knowing being that created the earth and the universe. I, on the other hand, believe, that they reflect the moral fundamentals of the society at the time and were incorporated into the religious tomes written by men to ensure the compliance of the populous.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

But seriously, I do not contest the fact that the so-called religious fundamentals have been around for millennia. Where you and I differ is the origin of those fundamentals. You seem to believe that they have been handed down from some all-seeing, all-knowing being that created the earth and the universe. I, on the other hand, believe, that they reflect the moral fundamentals of the society at the time and were incorporated into the religious tomes written by men to ensure the compliance of the populous.

But lets look at the ancient Greek philosophers for example. The belief then was that people who where intelligent had more worth to society then those who weren't ergo the unintelligent were dispensable and killing them was justified. If religions incorporated what the status quo was then why does this belief go against most divine religions who deem people superior based on their piety, compassion and righteousness and see humans as equals. Divine revelations revolutionised the societies they were introduced to and gave rights to people who were oppresed and freed them from the shackles of cultural and historical decadence.

[Niall_Quinn]

Common sense means what people commonly see as sense. A mad man's idea of sense would not represent the common man.

On the contrary, the common man appears to be more insane than the most stricken lunatic. Excusing insanity because it is "the norm" does not remove the insanity. Religion is the least of our worries when you look at the other shit inflicted on mankind such as democracy and the global banking system. Surely tackling these two fundamental horrors is more important than victimising those who wish to retain a spiritual aspect to their lives? Surely live and let live is a sound philosophy? Which is of course why democracy and the global banking system must be eradicated. Has anyone watched the news recently? If you think religion is insane then what do you have to say about economics? I bet some of you don't even question it, you just assume everything handed down to you is valid, in much the same way as those of faith would do. At least religion is not evil by default.

[Niall_Quinn]

Religions develop to allow a small group of (almost exclusively) men control of the rest of the people.

Agreed. 100% but without the feminist twist (which was another control mechanism organised by men). That's what organised religion is, a control structure. Whereas religion was segmented and secured merely majority control of mankind its amoral successor, the global banking system, is absolute in its influence. Mankind has never faced a greater evil and yet, religious people remain mostly silent as this classic definition of an anti-christ walks among them. This tells you all you need to know about organised religion and who directs it.

Personal religion is a different thing. Does anyone here begrudge a person his beliefs provided they are not forced down the throats of another?

[mandela]

Does anyone here begrudge a person his beliefs provided they are not forced down the throats of another?

Absolutely.


Especially when it's fuckin' stupid, like religion.

[mandela]

The fuck did my paedo post go to?

Fuck sake.

[Xhaka Can’t]

The fuck did my paedo post go to?

Fuck sake.
Dunno, I quoted you, figured you must have removed your post, so my post quoting you was irrelevant so I removed mine.

Does that make sense?

[Niall_Quinn]

Absolutely.


Especially when it's fuckin' stupid, like religion.

What's your problem with religion? Does it actually affect you in any way? Granted it used to have a great bearing on society but not now. So why do you even give it any thought?

[Toronto Gooner]

What's your problem with religion? Does it actually affect you in any way? Granted it used to have a great bearing on society but not now. So why do you even give it any thought?
Aside from the countless millions of people who have been murdered in the name of onereligion or another, I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting the level of control that religions have over governments and government decisions. It may be different in Europe but on this side of the pond, Christianity still holds considerable sway. Canada is nowhere hear as bad as the U.S. but we still have a Prime Minister who has adopted the U.S. mantra and ends all of his speeches with "May god bless Canada".

[Xhaka Can’t]

God has indeed blessed Canada.

With unbeatable deals on cheap pharmaceutical products!

[Niall_Quinn]

Aside from the countless millions of people who have been murdered in the name of onereligion or another, I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting the level of control that religions have over governments and government decisions. It may be different in Europe but on this side of the pond, Christianity still holds considerable sway. Canada is nowhere hear as bad as the U.S. but we still have a Prime Minister who has adopted the U.S. mantra and ends all of his speeches with "May god bless Canada".

Indeed, religion has been used as a cover story many times when kings, politicians and/or banksters wanted to commit mass murder in order to enrich themselves and their friends.

[The Wengerbabies]

http://www.alanwyatt.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ImagineNoReligion1.jpg

Says it all.

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.alanwyatt.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ImagineNoReligion1.jpg

Says it all.

What does it say? You think religion was responsible for the mass murder that took place in New York in 2001? Or the even greater slaughters that followed? That's just the media cover story. Check the relevant bank balances to find out the whos and whys of that particular day. The profits are still rolling in as we type. It just reinforces the fact, religion is an extremely convenient excuse.

[The Wengerbabies]

What does it say? You think religion was responsible for the mass murder that took place in New York in 2001? Or the even greater slaughters that followed? That's just the media cover story. Check the relevant bank balances to find out the whos and whys of that particular day. The profits are still rolling in as we type. It just reinforces the fact, religion is an extremely convenient excuse.
You seriously believe 9/11 was a conspiracy theory?

:doh:

[Niall_Quinn]

You seriously believe 9/11 was a conspiracy theory?

:doh:

All you have done is produce a conditioned response. And you've then added mockery which looks big and clever from a group thought perspective but ironic (I'm being kind) in all other cases. All politics is conspiracy, this is the worst kept secret in the world and yet the conditioning to ignore it is as strong as ever. I'll remind you that my beliefs are centred on human nature and a centuries old track record, your mockery is based on believing a man in a cave brought the US to its knees and served the purpose of the victim far more than it did the alleged aggressor. Sherlock Holmes is hardly required. This is why I take your mockery with the pinch of salt it so deserves.

[Joker]

Religious groups have many times in the past formed unholy alliances with the rulling classes, while hypocritically preaching about justice, fairness, virtue etc. In fact you only need to look at Europe, and the Christian Democrats who preach traditional Christian values combined with free market austerity policies that will hurt the least well off in society. Look at the Islamist party in Turkey, which may preach Islamic values and yet is the most pro business party in the country. In India the BJP is seen as the Hindu nationalist party, and yet they are most likely to have links with extreme right wing religious groups like Shiv Sena while at the same time pursuing free market policies to benefit the ruling classes.

[the easter bunnie]

Nana Mousskari is my favorite greek. she was a Mrs not a Myth. If she didn't wear glasses they could make a cool statue of her, but sculptors can't do glasses out of marble.

[Toronto Gooner]

All you have done is produce a conditioned response. And you've then added mockery which looks big and clever from a group thought perspective but ironic (I'm being kind) in all other cases. All politics is conspiracy, this is the worst kept secret in the world (my emphasis) and yet the conditioning to ignore it is as strong as ever. I'll remind you that my beliefs are centred on human nature and a centuries old track record, your mockery is based on believing a man in a cave brought the US to its knees and served the purpose of the victim far more than it did the alleged aggressor. Sherlock Holmes is hardly required. This is why I take your mockery with the pinch of salt it so deserves.
I awaited with baited breath your evidence of this "secret". Or would you prefer to read Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground by Jonathan Kay. If you ask nicely, I might even get it autographed as Jonathan is a member of my tennis/squash club.

Actually 19 terrorists brought the U.S. to its kness (along with a large chunk of the rest of the world). Also, bin Laden was not living in a cave at the time of 9/11: he was safely ensconced in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban government.

[Niall_Quinn]

"All politics is conspiracy, this is the worst kept secret in the world", your emphasis removed and the full sentence restored, in the interests of honesty. It would be interesting to know on what grounds you state your alleged facts with such authority. I thought so. Why not go one better, put your friend Jonathan directly in touch with me an I will happily dismantle any case he cares to present. It's not very difficult to do. Did he mention that the majority of these good "truthers" draw a wage? Did he tell you who the paymaster is? Another round of squash required I think.

Regardless, this thread is about baiting those with religious beliefs (of course I didn't miss the point). 911 is very reminiscent of a religion. Blind faith coupled with absolute intolerance of the evidence and an outright rejection of human nature and historical precedence. You see, some of you are a lot more religious than you ever imagined.

[The Wengerbabies]

What did the US gain from 9/11? An excuse to invade Afghanistan, they could have chosen a much less disastrous attack and blamed it on Al-Qaeda if this was what they wanted but what else did they gain?

Sure governments keep secrets and are involved in covert operations but 9/11 was not one of them.

[Niall_Quinn]

What did the US gain from 9/11? An excuse to invade Afghanistan, they could have chosen a much less disastrous attack and blamed it on Al-Qaeda if this was what they wanted but what else did they gain?

Sure governments keep secrets and are involved in covert operations but 9/11 was not one of them.

The US as a nation gained nothing at all. The usual list of private corporations who know no borders and have no allegiances except to themselves profited greatly, as they do from all the wars they manufacture. But, now you have declared the matter closed it is best we go back to watching soap operas of a more mundane variety. I understand why people need to believe the things they believe, I don't admire people for it but people are entitled to believe whatever government tells them if they want to. Just as people are entitled to have religious beliefs. What does annoy me a bit is when a person who holds unsustainable beliefs based on faith alone attacks another person of blind faith. That seems unfair. In fact it seems far more reasonable to accept Jesus Christ ascended into heaven than accept something as ludicrous as representative democracy, and yet people accept the latter without question whilst noisily condemning church goers. It makes no sense. Makes me think of planks wedged in eye sockets.

[Letters]

That was quite a decent post, mandela.
But, as usual, you spoilt it, with your usual nonsense at the end so I just deleted the whole thing.

[V-Pig]

RELIGIOUS DEBATE! :faint:

[WMUG]

You seriously believe that, don't you? *sigh*
Even if it were true, you think Christianity has the answers? It's one of the religions that has caused women to be seen as second class citizens, the remnants of which still exist today. It's one of the religions that forbids people marrying the man they love simply because they also have a Y chromosome. And if you want to follow the Christian moral code, you'd better take off that multi-fabric shirt you're wearing. Ever eaten a prawn? Repent now! And Christians are told to try to live a godly life, yes? Your God spends his entire life eternally torturing those who don't agree with him. Fuck that shit.

And my atheism does not depend on religion in any way. If religion didn't exist I'd be an atheist, but no one would call it that, it would just be 'reason'.
Dammit I was proud of this post and no one's responding :(

[Letters]

I mentioned you lot at Mrs L's church a few weeks back.
We split into groups and we were discussing...stuff and talking about how to share our beliefs.
I said I talk to people on t'internet and that you have to work out whether people are asking questions because they're actually interested in the answers or whether they're just looking for an argument/taking the proverbial.
Most people on here are the latter which is why I don't engage any more.

[WMUG]

I mentioned you lot at Mrs L's church a few weeks back.
We split into groups and we were discussing...stuff and talking about how to share our beliefs.
I said I talk to people on t'internet and that you have to work out whether people are asking questions because they're actually interested in the answers or whether they're just looking for an argument/taking the proverbial.
Most people on here are the latter which is why I don't engage any more.Who, me? :loveblush:
I'm always interested in debate, I just got a bit passionate and frankly somewhat offended there because of the ridiculous statement that "society can't have morals without religion".

[V-Pig]

Who, me? :loveblush:
I'm always interested in debate, I just got a bit passionate and frankly somewhat offended there because of the ridiculous statement that "society can't have morals without religion".

Don't blame you. Patronising.

[LDG]

Regardless of it being the internet, we've had enough religious debate on here to work out that the majority are sceptical. And I think that speaks for the majority of society.

It's clear that, aside from being outdated, most people just don't bother with religion. Not because they lack interest. It's because they believe it to be a crock of shite. Fewer and fewer people are drawn to religion, because more and more people are educated, and react to religion with common sense rather than a desire to understand their own mortality.

Religion for me has always been a way for people to comfort themselves in ignorance of the fact they are going to die. And that when you die, that is it. Finished. Gone. For ever. And the people who hold power in those religions (especially in years past) use that desperate need to believe that "this isn't all there is" to rule, to conquer and to serve their own puposes. Much like Bin Laden has done for the last twenty years.

[Nozza!]

Oi, geezer, not sure how that squares with the Christian missionary work ethic... still at least you wouldn't suffer the fate of some of the proselytisers in Papua New Guinea, eh...

Trouble is there are no new arguments to be made...you're keep humming George Michael's "Faith" and the Dawkinsians keep wailing Dylan's "With G-d on our side"...

It's just a shame some posters don't take your approach to Arsenal debate...

[Flavs]

I mentioned you lot at Mrs L's church a few weeks back.
We split into groups and we were discussing...stuff and talking about how to share our beliefs.
I said I talk to people on t'internet and that you have to work out whether people are asking questions because they're actually interested in the answers or whether they're just looking for an argument/taking the proverbial.
Most people on here are the latter which is why I don't engage any more.

If there really is a god and thus a devil, the devil created the internet as a means of distraction from religion anyway.

Just out of interest/ignorance is there a villain in the koran? or in the Hindu and Buddhist beliefs?

[GP]

http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/meh.ro7503.png

[Letters]

Who, me? :loveblush:
I'm always interested in debate, I just got a bit passionate and frankly somewhat offended there because of the ridiculous statement that "society can't have morals without religion".

Oh you're interested in debate in an intellectual level but that's all it is.
If someone I meet is genuinely exploring religion and has some questions at an intellectual level then I'm happy to help best I can.
Debate for the sake of debate with people who are just interested in the debate (or, worse, looking for an argument or seeking to belittle my beliefs) is less appealing.

[Nozza!]

Oi, mush, in order, infidels, bad acts and earthly distractions...

[Flavs]

Oi, mush, in order, infidels, bad acts and earthly distractions...

So its more a collection of things to avoid rather than a baddy supplying evils?

[WMUG]

Oh you're interested in debate in an intellectual level but that's all it is.
If someone I meet is genuinely exploring religion and has some questions at an intellectual level then I'm happy to help best I can.
Debate for the sake of debate with people who are just interested in the debate (or, worse, looking for an argument or seeking to belittle my beliefs) is less appealing.I'm interested in that too, I wouldn't have taken RS GCSE otherwise. Or in other words: "idiot I studied RS to GSCE level and got an A so wtf are you talking about you prize muppet"

[Letters]

What do you mean by 'that too'? You show absolutely no inclination to explore religion in anything other than an intellectual, mocking way.
You come across as a MiniConey.
:shrug:

PS: I did GSCE RE too.
I got a D.
:lol:
:cool:

[Nozza!]

So its more a collection of things to avoid rather than a baddy supplying evils?

Oi, punchy, my take on it is that it specifying a way of acting for society's good. Most people will agree that there are right and wrong things to do. Kill people bad, help the sick good. Religious texts just codify this, which is good for educative and evangelical purposes. The problem is that most / many see these codifications as the word of god which is both infalable and unquestioned. So it can not be adaptive to changes in society.


Darwinists would argue that the good and bad behaviours are genetic and the development of society has outpaced genetic adaptation. Meaning there is a lag in evolution or something...

[Flavs]

Oi, punchy, my take on it is that it specifying a way of acting for society's good. Most people will agree that there are right and wrong things to do. Kill people bad, help the sick good. Religious texts just codify this, which is good for educative and evangelical purposes. The problem is that most / many see these codifications as the word of god which is both infalable and unquestioned. So it can not be adaptive to changes in society.


Darwinists would argue that the good and bad behaviours are genetic and the development of society has outpaced genetic adaptation. Meaning there is a lag in evolution or something...

Hmm i see your point here and i agree that there are startling similarities between the moral codes outlined in all the different beliefs, i just love a good baddy is all.

[Nozza!]

Oi, mush, try watching Die Hard movies then...just once you'd like one of those Superbaddies to stop arsing about and just waste Bruce Willis...

[Flavs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEZaPN8gUY (wont let me embed it)


Still one my favs

Kevin Smith :bow:

[Flavs]

Oi, mush, try watching Die Hard movies then...just once you'd like one of those Superbaddies to stop arsing about and just waste Bruce Willis...

Well Alan Rickman does have a lot of similarities with Lucifer tbf

"I'm not the one who just got ass fucked on TV...Dwayne"

[LDG]

Well Alan Rickman does have a lot of similarities with Lucifer tbf

"I'm not the one who just got butt fucked on national TV...Dwayne"

Fixed that.

[WMUG]

What do you mean by 'that too'? You show absolutely no inclination to explore religion in anything other than an intellectual, mocking way.
You come across as a MiniConey.
:shrug:

PS: I did GSCE RE too.
I got a D.
:lol:
:cool:

TBF I think the last religious debate we got in I was 12 (god thinking back to then, what an annoying little cunt I was :lol: )
I don't intend to come across as mocking it, but that statement from Mr B really got me going.

[Young Guns 11]

I'm not sure whether my question has actually been properly answered :unsure:

Letters, do you think the Greek Gods (or Roman, etc etc) are a myth?

[Letters]

What do you mean 'was'? ;)
What statement do you mean? About needing religion to provide a moral framework?
I agree you don't need religion to provide that although I guess my take on that would be that a moral framework which is believed to be from God would be more valid than a man made one (if you believe that God is our creator and thus knows how things should be better than we do).
The morality in the Bible isn't in the minutae of Leviticus (or wherever you're getting some of the things you're quoting from). The 10 commandments are the framework and Jesus boiled it down to "love God and love your neighbour as yourself". Love for fellow man seems like a pretty decent basis for morality to me. This is why it doesn't wash with me when people who say religion causes this or that problem in the world. People who puport to follow a religion may well cause all kinds of problems but I'd suggest those people aren't actually following the moral teachings of their religion so to blame the religion seems harsh.

[Letters]

Letters, do you think the Greek Gods are a myth?

Yes.

And the difference between those stories and the 3 Western religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is that those 3 are based on historical events.
There's little doubt that Jesus (or Mohammad) was a real historical person. Who Jesus was...well, that's where the 3 religions differ and that debate will never be resolved. But the religions are not without historical basis.


Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
C. S. Lewis (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/cslewis164517.html)

[Young Guns 11]

I need to get back to revision, i'll come back to this later when I have the time

[Ollie the Optimist]

Because people are hypocritical and stupid.

You can forgive the Ancient Greeks for believing in Zeus, Aphrodite, Aries etc. But the religious nutjobs of today have no excuse for believing in god.

i dont understand this, how can one lot of people believe in something be ok but todays lot are stupid?

[The Wengerbabies]

i dont understand this, how can one lot of people believe in something be ok but todays lot are stupid?
Really?

They also thought the Earth was flat. Need I say more, they had very little knowledge of how the world works, with scientific advancements people of today should be above believing in such ludicrousnesses.

[IBK]

http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Letters (TPFKA WWTL@WHL) http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=4589#post4589)
I mentioned you lot at Mrs L's church a few weeks back.
We split into groups and we were discussing...stuff and talking about how to share our beliefs.
I said I talk to people on t'internet and that you have to work out whether people are asking questions because they're actually interested in the answers or whether they're just looking for an argument/taking the proverbial.
Most people on here are the latter which is why I don't engage any more.



Who, me? :loveblush:
I'm always interested in debate, I just got a bit passionate and frankly somewhat offended there because of the ridiculous statement that "society can't have morals without religion". Of course it can. But in Western Society it often doesn't.

[Niall_Quinn]

Really?

They also thought the Earth was flat. Need I say more, they had very little knowledge of how the world works, with scientific advancements people of today should be above believing in such ludicrousnesses.

Agreed, we know more about the physical world today (which of course makes our behaviour even less forgiveable). Much thanks must go to the individuals who stood up against conventional "wisdom" and boldly stated, "Don't be a cunt! Open you fucking eyes and take a look you plum... it's a fucking sphere! Stupid cunt!" (not round btw, a lot of enlightened people believe it is round) I'm sure they had to put up with all manner of ignoramuses throwing their faeces and having a fit as their flat earth dropped into the dustbin. I'm sure they had a lot of comfort invested in that flat earth, but reality wouldn't play along. Poor them, once so confident now so extinct. Well almost.

[Letters]

It's not a sphere either, Einstein :coffee:

[Niall_Quinn]

It's not a sphere either, Einstein :coffee:

It's not a perfect sphere but only because it is influenced by rotational forces. If you want to bring Einstein into it then there are circumstances under which the earth could indeed be flat.

[Fish Finger Sandwich]

Man invents God...Man worships God...Man Kills God

Religion is for fuckwits...but it keeps them cosy in a fucked up world

[Slacker]

:trophy:

[MissHandbag]

Really?

They also thought the Earth was flat. Need I say more, they had very little knowledge of how the world works, with scientific advancements people of today should be above believing in such ludicrousnesses.

Despite the fact I'm not religious - I have to ask you this since all of your debate seems to swing on entirely scientific answers:

Do you believe in love?
If it's a yes then... love isn't scientifically based (yet), however, probably the basis of many wars, beliefs, crimes and I'm guessing the majority of people would agree it exists. My point being that just because something is scientifically proven means shit! Scientifically disproving something is another matter.

I don't believe in God, Allah, whatever because I don't and no amount of wishy washy good vs evil vs devil vs the lord will change that unless something evidential happens to change that. What you seem to be saying is (unless I'm reading too much into it) is that there is scientific proof that there is no god? What makes you any different to those people that try and force their pro'beliefs on non believers?

[Syn]

The thing is I believe in a higher power/god/energy but I think people who follow specific religions are immature. Religious teachings in the Bhagavat Gita, say, are superb in a philosophical sense but you'd have to be an idiot to believe it actually happened.

[The Wengerbabies]

MissHandbag; No I don't believe in love. Marriage is unnatural and a waste of time imo, but then marriage comes from religion so what d'you expect?

[MissHandbag]

MissHandbag; No I don't believe in love. Marriage is unnatural and a waste of time imo, but then marriage comes from religion so what d'you expect?


Since when was love spelled 'MARRIAGE'?

[Xhaka Can’t]

I believe that children are our future.

[The Wengerbabies]

Since when was love spelled 'MARRIAGE'?
It hasn't but generally 'love' leads to marriage.

[The Wengerbabies]

I believe that children are our future.
The future :rose:

[MissHandbag]

I believe that children are our future.

You git - I now have George Benson on the brain

[MissHandbag]

It hasn't but generally 'love' leads to marriage.

On what scientific research is this theory based (as a little clue - I've never been married)

[V-Pig]

Love leads to disillusionment and bitter cynicism.

[The Wengerbabies]

On what scientific research is this theory based (as a little clue - I've never been married)
It just does tbh.

[Xhaka Can’t]

On what scientific research is this theory based (as a little clue - I've never been married)

But have you been to Nice and the Isles of Greece?

[MissHandbag]

Love leads to disillusionment and bitter cynicism.

Your parents love Cricketsi more than you don't they?

Big hug

[Xhaka Can’t]

Or sipped champagne from a yacht?

[MissHandbag]

But have you been to Nice and the Isles of Greece?

No but I've spent my life exploring the subtle whoring that costs to much to be free

[V-Pig]

Your parents love Cricketsi more than you don't they?

Big hug

According to him, I'm the favourite.

Which is why I was fed more and reached six foot.

[MissHandbag]

It just does tbh.


It's a rubbish theory: I've not been married cos I'm not ready to yet. Maybe never will. But I love people, love my family, love my partner and your theory is frankly immature.

[The Wengerbabies]

According to him, I'm the favourite.

Which is why I was fed more and reached six foot.
Meh siblings always feel the other (or another) is the favorite. True story.

Cricketsi is the best so no doubt he is the favorite.

[MissHandbag]

According to him, I'm the favourite.

Which is why I was fed more and reached six foot.

I heard you were weaned like a rhubarb in a dark shed! Tall but untouched

[V-Pig]

Ha, well I don't feel cricketsi is favourite...

[Syn]

Ha, well I don't feel cricketsi is favourite...

You know I'm not a dick, but from my experience the less successful kid is usually the favourite. I've seen it in a number of families.

Cricketsi should be a mod tbfh.

[V-Pig]

You know I'm not a dick, but from my experience the less successful kid is usually the favourite. I've seen it in a number of families.

Cricketsi should be a mod tbfh.

Sympathy love ftw.

[Syn]

:lol:

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RQjQvxtmK8A/TSdpcu2yN2I/AAAAAAAADhc/71JR7jN87l8/s1600/Page_1.png

[cricketsi]

You know I'm not a dick, but from my experience the less successful kid is usually the favourite. I've seen it in a number of families.

Cricketsi should be a mod tbfh.

:gp:But more of this chat about me should involve that @ ; mentioning business I don't really understand.

Greg's always been an attention seeking whore and was the youngest child for a long time, which is why he got fed more. Mostly, it's clear within the family that he's quite insecure and emotionally fragile whereas I'm mature and stable, so he continues to get more of the superficial love.

And he sucks at PES, so gets the sympathy love there.

[V-Pig]

The other day, the little brother was busy thrashing cricketsi 3-1 on PES, about 60-70mins in, and cricketsi quit the game. Just pressed quit. Because he was losing.

So next time he tries to claim superiority with his "win percentage", everyone knows it's invalid.

[cricketsi]

The other day, the little brother was busy thrashing cricketsi 3-1 on PES, about 60-70mins in, and cricketsi quit the game. Just pressed quit. Because he was losing.

So next time he tries to claim superiority with his "win percentage", everyone knows it's invalid.

He was warned using his cheating obtained master league team would be considered invalid. :shrug: