Maggie Green
Official Checked Star Member
Assari, just GO AWAY! Please!
[B][URL="https://www.freeones.com/maggie-green said:
I second this!
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I asked you nothing of the sort. I asked that you provide substantive proof of your claims about Jesus being the salvation of all those who believe in him. Unless or until you can do that, your opinions are just that....opinions. Don't you dare judge me as an individual. You don't know me or what my core belief system is so please quit referring to me as a "barbarian" or "satanist". Those references are just plain wrong and, quite frankly, you're being a jerk by applying them to anyone who dares to disagree with you. You're just another intolerant Christian and, hence, hypocrite as far as I am concerned.
This to me is a classic example of someone who has read a book and another who believes it. Assari, you interpret the bible like a stereo instruction manual, A plus B = C.
If you are a true believer, for all my own distaste for religion, as long as you keep it to yourself then I respect that. Try to shove it down my throat or hold it over me then you will lose me and become another bleating sheep in the flock.
You seem like the person who would try and sell religion like you were selling a car, there is nothing sincere in what you say, I think you think you believe, but you lack conviction.
I highly doubt that.
Fair observation on the real world? No.
Bias that suits your argument? Sounds like the Christian way to argue.
ApolloBalboa
Was King of the Board for a Day
Your personal experience, the keyword being personal. Just because the interactions you may have had with atheists were bad, you shouldn't condemn every other atheist. Two of my friends are atheists and they're more open, polite, and nicer than their families who hold strong Christian values.
Keep in mind as well, you come across as overbearing and arrogant when it comes to religion, so I'm not at all surprised that your interactions with atheists thus far have been nothing but failures.
It may be that my views are a little biased because most of the people who I know are Christians.
It would be selfish to deny your sentiment so I am not going to argue with you.
"Tarkoitan että en halua nolata sinunkaltaista hieman naivia nuortamiestä joka niin kovasti haluaa neuvoa toisia"
(assari)
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I would like to go on record as saying that I am not an atheist. I'm just not a Christian. Does that still make me a barbarian and a satanist? 
Well stated!
Well stated!
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I am an agnostic. I don't know whether there is a God or not and, even if there is, there is nothing of any importance that any of us can do to affect anything to any degree to make a difference in the way events unfold in our lives so the whole issue is moot.
From a strictly religious standpoint, however, Buddhism is the only discipline that makes any sense to me so, if you must label me in a spiritual sense, call me a Buddhist.
"Tekisi mieli kysyä, että onko Buddishmi mielestäsi filosofia, psykologia vai uskonto, mutta en osaa tarpeeksi englantia jotta voisin ryhtyä keskustelemaan kanssasi ja sitäpaitsi olemme jo eksyneet alkuperäisestä keskustelun aiheesta liian kauas"
(assari)
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Buddhism is no more a philosophy than any other religion (Christianity included). It's a spiritual belief system but you may call it whatever you wish. Obviously, you don't know much about it and, since there is only one true faith as far as you are concerned, why bother learning?
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I don't know about that; I think science can and will eventually fill the void our genetic wiring demands for explaining the world around us. There's some very intriguing writing done on theories about why we have such demands; I recommend reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (note: not a book about religion, but biology). It has to, frankly, for human progress to be made.
I have to concede that I think people regardless of religion or science will continue to act like condescending dicks to whoever doesn't subscribe to their 'reality', though.
I enjoy it for a random range of differing opinions and viewpoints, albeit male-dominated.
It still baffles me that these religions continue to grow when there's solid evidence that it's all a crock of shit. Belief in a god is one thing; adherence to a religion, in this day in age, really is intellectually indefensible. I know some smart religious (by which I mean, adhering to a religion - not the same as a theist) folk and they just 'switch off' that intelligence to stomach the gross inconsistencies and obvious falsehoods of the religion they want to believe in. I really don't understand it*.
Ah, Jagger, you've touched the golden truth here and I hope it doesn't go unnoticed! Here is a pretty simple scientific/philosophical rule: if something is not disprovable, it is entirely irrelevant and has no effect on anything. Because if it did, it would be provable (one way or the other).
A quick illustration from Carl Sagan: I have a dragon in my garage. You want to see it? It's invisible. You want to throw water on it? Well, it's incorporeal as well. Heat detection? It has none. Whatever-the-lastest-Star-Trek-like-scanning-device it? Nah, that can't see it either. So what does it matter if there's a dragon in my garage? It cannot be disproved because it effects nothing and its existence is therefore entirely meaningless. Gods are the same.
* That's not entirely true, actually; I understand it rather well the way Sigmund Freud explained it. Fits in with karma, reincarnation, and any other belief structure people have put into place to comfort themselves. It's just too bad that inward-comfort often turns into outward-condemnation.
Yes, I've read Dawkins. It's been a while, so I'm not comfortable commenting on it in detail, but I am familiar with his central thesis.
Unfortunately, the old adage 'You can lead a horse to water...' has never been more true than when referring to the debate between science and religion. It really doesn't matter how much evidence there is on behalf of a scientific theory or the soundness of the argument. The overwhelming majority will still believe that "God's behind it all."
Take the creation of the world, for example. People who interpret the Bible literally believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. The vast majority of Christians don't interpret the Bible this way, but even the ones who believe in Evolution and the Big Bang and think the Genesis story is a figurative myth still believe that God is what set all that stuff in motion. In short, there is no contradiction between believing in Science and God at the same time. Science may be a much more well-founded belief system, but it is to God that people look to provide meaning.
And you know, people have been predicting the end of religion and belief in the supernatural for thousands of years. I really don't think that day is coming any time soon.
Once again, this is why you're completely full of crap. You're equivocating on the meaning of the term 'Christian'. Setting aside, for the moment, that there are hundreds of Christian denominations worldwide, and even non-denominational churches, your own definition of the term (i.e., "everyone who doesn't agree with everything I believe") is so specific and at the same time so vague, that you know people will take offense and argue with you because they don't define the term the same way you do.
You're just trying to piss people off. You have no integrity whatsoever.
A couple comments/suggestions:
I think Agnosticism is stronger than this, or at least, stronger than the first part of your statement.
It isn't so much that an Agnostic "doesn't know," it's that all the evidence both for and against all forms of theism - and all the evidence that could ever be brought in the future - simply isn't persuasive. Consequently, an agnostic doesn't think the issue is decideable, not now, not ever. Simply saying one "doesn't know" implies that one hasn't yet made up their mind or has temporarily suspended judgment.
This may not be a large distinction to most people, but I think it makes a difference.
Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is in fact sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no God. Where Atheists and Agnostics agree, I think, is on the last part of your statement, i.e., that regardless of what one believes, the issue is really moot as it does not affect our lives in the least.
I view Buddhism as Christian Asceticism without a divine being. There is a spiritual side of Buddhism in the overall understanding of the nature of the Cosmos, but it isn't the central focus of the religion, and Buddha isn't divine the way Jesus is believed to be (indeed, for Buddhists, there is no "ultimate reality"). But most of Buddha's central teachings are identical to those of Jesus once you remove the notion of eternal salvation or damnation. You can find in Buddha's Four-Fold Path every major moral and ethical teaching from the Sermon on the Mount, for example.
For this reason, I've always preferred to call Buddhism a Worldview, not a religion. To me, a religion is a kind of Worldview, as are various philosophies. Buddhism is sort of in-between.
I think Agnosticism is stronger than this, or at least, stronger than the first part of your statement.
It isn't so much that an Agnostic "doesn't know," it's that all the evidence both for and against all forms of theism - and all the evidence that could ever be brought in the future - simply isn't persuasive. Consequently, an agnostic doesn't think the issue is decideable, not now, not ever. Simply saying one "doesn't know" implies that one hasn't yet made up their mind or has temporarily suspended judgment.
This may not be a large distinction to most people, but I think it makes a difference.
Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is in fact sufficient evidence to conclude that there is no God. Where Atheists and Agnostics agree, I think, is on the last part of your statement, i.e., that regardless of what one believes, the issue is really moot as it does not affect our lives in the least.
I view Buddhism as Christian Asceticism without a divine being. There is a spiritual side of Buddhism in the overall understanding of the nature of the Cosmos, but it isn't the central focus of the religion, and Buddha isn't divine the way Jesus is believed to be (indeed, for Buddhists, there is no "ultimate reality"). But most of Buddha's central teachings are identical to those of Jesus once you remove the notion of eternal salvation or damnation. You can find in Buddha's Four-Fold Path every major moral and ethical teaching from the Sermon on the Mount, for example.
For this reason, I've always preferred to call Buddhism a Worldview, not a religion. To me, a religion is a kind of Worldview, as are various philosophies. Buddhism is sort of in-between.
I agree, if there is only one forum topic (porn) then the conversation would be pretty poor.
I do not try to be serious all the time, I do not believe that people pay attention to my writings and this place is an entertaining forum.
I have read articles about Buddhism, but I have to first meet one of them before I can say anything.
Similar threads
