Opinions on Christianity - Page 3

GAma_Oyabun · 06-22-2008, 11:54 PM

yea satan gets control of everything except for his soul,

lol if it was a bet then satan is screwing himself, obviously God knew the outcome

UchihaTaijiya · 06-23-2008, 12:04 AM

I haven't actually read the end. Though I'm sure God gets proven right, he must have sent the three friends or something. o.o

edit - Hahaha, oh, man, I was wrong about Job's three friends. <.< /just finished reading the end.

Miles T · 06-23-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

You really don't see that there's a big difference between weapons of mass destruction and a bunch of fairytales? Okay, fine, I know what you're doing so I'll roll with this anyway. : )

So let's assume they're exactly the same, and that your premises and conclusions are completely correct. That would mean that movies/books/television/music and pretty much anything else that can influence stupid people to do stupid things are dangerous and should be done away with. Right? Because that's exactly what you're saying.

I'm not saying just because it can be harmless that it's all good. I'm also saying that there's a lot of things that can influence stupid people to do stupid things besides religion; and that religion isn't the root cause of all that, stupidity is.

In your analogy religion is the nuclear bomb. If someone launches a nuke, are you seriously going to put blame on the nuke itself though? Is it the nuke's fault that it got launched? Should the nuke itself be held responsible? Of course not. It's the dumbass that launched it that's the problem.

Even a nuclear bomb is fairly harmless without assholes around to use it. You think if we got rid of nuclear bombs that people would suddenly stop needlessly killing other people? You think the world would suddenly be rid of douchebags who want to cause a ton of harm? Again, of course not. Stupid people would still exist without religion. It wouldn't solve much of anything. All that would change is that they'd have to find a different excuse to be douchebags about shit, and trust me, they would. Your beef is ultimately with stupid people, same as mine. Don't get caught up in whatever excuse they're using to justify their stupidity.

As far as I recall (quote me if I'm wrong), I didn't state that it would be the fault of the nuclear weapons or that their removal would stop 'mindless' murdering. However, by showing you have a contradiction in your ethics, I've shown that your current...'ethical configuration' is untenable. All I'm saying that your justification for condoning religion -- that it can theoretically be benign -- is inconsistent with another of your positions. I'm not defending my position; I'm fighting on your turf to dismiss your argument. In fact, I can't believe that I didn't notice that what you're actually doing is applying your principles to me. I never actually said nor meant to say that religion should be banned outright because it can lead to 'bad' outcomes: you ascribed that principle to me and used that straw-man, albeit unintentionally, I'm sure, to attack that ascribed principle to make my position seem untenable. And I nearly fell for it. But, the fact is, the only principle of my own I've espoused that I recall is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles T

...believing in God is not condonable because the positive aspects of that belief can be supplanted by other things that do not come with negative effects. Thus, to believe in God is a choice (albeit not necessarily a conscious one) to obtain positive results along with negative ones when one could just obtain the positive results without this belief.

The rest has just been me attacking your own justification. Again, correct me if I've managed to forget something.

As another analogy, by your reasoning, it's okay for all parents to tell their children to murder without provocation, because their children would not necessarily do so. But, in practice, do you really want a world full of children reared to do that?

06-23-2008, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles T

As far as I recall (quote me if I'm wrong), I didn't state that it would be the fault of the nuclear weapons or that their removal would stop 'mindless' murdering.

I wasn't trying to say you did either. I'm showing that religion isn't to blame for persecution, delusion, hindrance of human progression and prejudice, among other things. Human stupidity is.

Quote:

However, by showing you have a contradiction in your ethics, I've shown that your current...'ethical configuration' is untenable. All I'm saying that your justification for condoning religion -- that it can theoretically be benign -- is inconsistent with another of your positions.

Uh, what? Where am I contradicting myself again? I must have missed the part where you showed a contradiction with my ethics. I'm guessing you're misunderstanding my ethics, if anything.

Quote:

I'm not defending my position; I'm fighting on your turf to dismiss your argument. In fact, I can't believe that I didn't notice that what you're actually doing is applying your principles to me. I never actually said nor meant to say that religion should be banned outright because it can lead to 'bad' outcomes: you ascribed that principle to me and used that straw-man, albeit unintentionally, I'm sure, to attack that ascribed principle to make my position seem untenable.

Straw-man? How so? Seriously. I never claimed that you were out to ban religion. I never said anything about banning religion. I stated that if religion was done away with then it wouldn't get rid of stupid people (The true cause of stupid shit), which was part of my argument all along. I fail to see how stating things to support the stance I'm defending would be considered creating false arguments in any way.

If you want to discredit my position, then go for it. You're purposely ignoring a large chunk of my argument though. Yes, religion can be considered 'harmful' when you're dealing with stupid people (I'm assuming that's basically what you're going for with the whole nuclear bomb analogy. If I'm wrong then correct me.). I never said otherwise, but point proven none-the-less. My counter-argument against that is so are a lot of other things, as I've stated numerous times. Also, stupidity is to blame, not the excuse to justify said stupidity. Meaning the point I'm assuming that you're making is moot.

Am I misunderstanding something? Are you? I don't know. Let's try clearing that up, eh? Don't go accusing me of busting out logical fallacies though, nicely or not, k? ; )

Quote:

As another analogy, by your reasoning, it's okay for all parents to tell their children to murder without provocation, because their children would not necessarily do so. But, in practice, do you really want a world full of children reared to do that?

Elaborate.

Miles T · 06-23-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

...That would mean that movies/books/television/music and pretty much anything else that can influence stupid people to do stupid things are dangerous and should be done away with. Right? Because that's exactly what you're saying...

There's your straw-man. I merely raised an analogy to contradict your point; I didn't state that I thought nuclear weapons should or should not be possessed by everybody (as far as I can see). I attacked your point; I didn't give mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Elaborate.

Actually, on further thought that line of reasoning seems to have been based on a misinterpretation.

Time to finish this in a hurry, as I shall be off soon.

Okay, look. For your justification (that religion is permissible because it can be theoretically benign) to suffice, it must always be the case that something that can be theoretically benign is permissible, right?

Basically, you're saying (the point I'm contesting) that A (in this case religion) is a B (in this case something permissible) because A is a C (in this case something not necessarily harmful). That is:

Premise: A is a C
Conclusion: A is a B

But this requires another premise to be certain: that anything that is a C is also a B. Thus:

Premise: A is a C
Premise: All Cs are Bs
Conclusion: A is a B

If we substitute in everyone having nuclear weapons, we get the conclusion that as everybody having nuclear weapons is not necessarily harmful, it is permissible.

I'm not saying that books/music/etc. shouldn't be condoned because of this principle; I'm just saying that when we extend your principle, you contradict your position that not everybody should have nuclear weapons. I suggest you use a different principle to decide whether something is permissible, one that accommodates books and music but not nuclear weapons.

I'm off for now. 'night.

06-23-2008, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles T

There's your straw-man. I merely raised an analogy to contradict your point; I didn't state that I thought nuclear weapons should or should not be possessed by everybody (as far as I can see). I attacked your point; I didn't give mine.

That's still not a straw-man. A counter-argument is still an argument, dude. Your original post replying to mine implied that religion is 'bad.' You then compared religion to nuclear weapons. I put two and two together. If you're saying I was mistaken and that wasn't your intention, then that's one thing. It certainly wouldn't be flawed on my part to assume that was your intention though, and my counter-argument against your counter-argument still applies regardless.

Quote:

Actually, on further thought that line of reasoning seems to have been based on a misinterpretation.

Thought so.

Quote:

Okay, look. For your justification (that religion is permissible because it can be theoretically benign) to suffice, it must always be the case that something that can be theoretically benign is permissible, right?

This is stupid. You're just putting words in my mouth here. I'm not justifying religion solely because it can be harmless. I'm saying that religion by itself is harmless. Is it kind of stupid and illogical? Yeah. Can a mere belief alone hurt anyone though? Fuck no. It takes stupid people to take that belief too far for it to be harmful.

Quote:

Basically, you're saying (the point I'm contesting) that A (in this case religion) is a B (in this case something permissible) because A is a C (in this case something not necessarily harmful). That is:

Premise: A is a C
Conclusion: A is a B

But this requires another premise to be certain: that anything that is a C is also a B. Thus:

Premise: A is a C
Premise: All Cs are Bs
Conclusion: A is a B

If we substitute in everyone having nuclear weapons, we get the conclusion that as everybody having nuclear weapons is not necessarily harmful, it is permissible.

Which is great, except you're the one who came up with this "if it's not necessarily harmful in some cases then it should be permissible" thing, not me. Now I know you might try to be a prick and quote where I said "Correct, sort of..." or whatever I said, because I was an idiot who didn't realize that little trap you were setting at the time so I just went along with it, but right underneath that I covered my bases by clarifying my point by stating that it's not religion itself that is harmful, it's human stupidity that is to blame. Meaning that you're trying to jam this argument of yours where it just doesn't fit.

Quote:

I'm not saying that books/music/etc. shouldn't be condoned because of this principle; I'm just saying that when we extend your principle, you contradict your position that not everybody should have nuclear weapons. I suggest you use a different principle to decide whether something is permissible, one that accommodates books and music but not nuclear weapons.

Thanks for the suggesting, I'll keep that in mind when applying my principl...oh, wait, that wasn't my principle to begin with. XD

My point is that none of those things are harmful on their own. Anything you can blame religion, videogames, and even nuclear bombs on are really the result of stupidity and douchebaggery.

Should everyone have nuclear weapons? No. Stupid, douchebaggish people with nuclear weapons are dangerous. Stupid, douchebaggish people who take fairytales way too seriously are also dangerous, and we would be better off without them as well. Stupid, douchebaggish people in general are dangerous and we'd be better off with out them, for fuck's sake. Unfortunately we can't stop stupid people from being stupid, and we can't just go and get rid of them either because that'd be mean...or some shit. Stupid people are always going to be a problem though, it's got nothing to do with any of that other shit.

That's what my argument has been all along. You disagree with that? Cool, bring it. I'm not a huge fan of this round-a-bout shit you're pulling now though (I'm not going to call your shit straw-men. I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding due to me wording shit poorly anyway, and I kind of like you. XD). It's not going to work on me anyway. So just come at my shit directly, make it fun. : )

Miles T · 06-23-2008, 01:27 PM

Well, if those are your positions, I presently see nothing more for me to criticise. Whether you believe (heh) me or not, I'll state that I wasn't trying to trap you; I genuinely thought the line I refuted was your actual justification, which you seemed to put forth in your second response to this thread (if I recall correctly) without any trapping from me. Anyway, truth be told, both of us have surely been ambiguous and misinterpreted, but we seem to have come to agreement.

06-23-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles T

Well, if those are your positions, I presently see nothing more for me to criticise. Whether you believe (heh) me or not, I'll state that I wasn't trying to trap you; I genuinely thought the line I refuted was your actual justification, which you seemed to put forth in your second response to this thread (if I recall correctly) without any trapping from me. Anyway, truth be told, both of us have surely been ambiguous and misinterpreted, but we seem to have come to agreement.

Agreed. And I believe it. I did emphasize my 'stupid people + religion = not cool' thing pretty hard in that second post, so that's where I got that. =p I really should have been a lot more clear a lot earlier though, so my bad in that respect. Good game, mate. : )

Edit: @Job discussion-Firstly, oh, right. Still, I'd count that as God owning Job. If I pushed a sheep into a den of wolves I'd count that as me owning a sheep even though the wolves are the ones fucking it up. Know what I mean? XD

And I'd say Satan still came out on top considering he pretty much tricked God into letting him fuck up one of his most loyal followers just so God could win a bet. They really should have left that story out...>.>

Miles T · 06-23-2008, 02:06 PM

Aye, well played. Though now I think about it, you do still of course condone religion, a position I find untenable. Expect to hear more from me sometime... =)

RNB · 06-24-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Edit: @Job discussion-Firstly, oh, right. Still, I'd count that as God owning Job. If I pushed a sheep into a den of wolves I'd count that as me owning a sheep even though the wolves are the ones fucking it up. Know what I mean? XD

And I'd say Satan still came out on top considering he pretty much tricked God into letting him fuck up one of his most loyal followers just so God could win a bet. They really should have left that story out...>.>

I don't think you understand that story at all. See, the validity of the story of Job is questioned. Either way, a lot of lessons can be gained from the book.

For one, you can say that God was someone mean and just there to spite Job, but you obviously haven't read to the end of the story and if you have, you are looking at the story in a biased perspective. See, while God takes everything away from Job, it humbled him. When you look at the story from the point that earthly possessions are worth nothing, then you start to understand the story. While Job lost a lot of those possessions, he gained something better. His faith strengthened to a new level, and in the end it all does work out.

The thing is, you don't even understand religion, so you would obviously not care about these values. To the person who does value religion, this story does teach some moral lessons. Another is that bad things happen to good people, but I don't feel like typing that lesson all out.

Miles T · 06-24-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy

I don't think you understand that story at all.
...The thing is, you don't even understand religion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy

There should be no controversy.

Indeed, the winning side in arguments on religion as they invariably transpire at this stage in humanity isn't really disputable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy

Atheists should respect fundamentalists views and fundamentalists should respect atheists views because it is all interpretation.

Feel free to...justify your points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy

There is no definate right or wrong jsut like there is no definite anything.

Cogito, ergo sum. Here's a little problem for you to solve: define 'right' and define 'wrong'.

~

I'm sure you can justify your Christianity, considering your bold yet disappointingly bare statements. Go on, I dare you to try.

RNB · 06-24-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles T

Indeed, the winning side in arguments on religion as they invariably transpire at this stage in humanity isn't really disputable.

What I am disputing is the fact that he thinks the point of Job is how evil God is. I am trying to give him a perspective where faith is actually valued since that is probably why the Bible is made. I don't think he is 100% wrong, but he didn't even try to look at our perspective.

Quote:

Feel free to...justify your points.

When did I attempt to force you to believe my interpretation. I was giving you an alternative view seeing 99.9% of atheists I meet say how open-minded they are yet they come up with arguments like, "God is evil XD."

Quote:

Cognito, ergo sum. Here's a little problem for you to solve: define 'right' and define 'wrong'.

~

I'm sure you can justify your Christianity, considering your bold yet disappointingly bare statements. Go on, I dare you to try.

I don't have to define right or wrong. This is all I have to tell you.

Prove, using logic, that this forum has multiple templates and retrace your argument as far as you can as to why there are multiple templates. Prove every truth you state to prove this forum has multiple templates. Tell me when you are done.

See, logic is based on assumptions. Even cognito ergo sum is based on an assumption. It basically says that because I think, I exist, which isn't really enough information to prove someone exists. For instance, "Why does someone thinking prove their own existence?" Why is existence based on thought?

I am a skeptic the way the Greeks invented it. Since no truth can be universal, their is no truth. Not even our own senses we are sure of. This is why a god's existence is not hard for me to except because it is just as probable as this forum having multiple skins.

06-24-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miles T

Aye, well played. Though now I think about it, you do still of course condone religion, a position I find untenable. Expect to hear more from me sometime... =)

I look forward to that. : )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy

I don't think you understand that story at all. See, the validity of the story of Job is questioned. Either way, a lot of lessons can be gained from the book.

For one, you can say that God was someone mean and just there to spite Job, but you obviously haven't read to the end of the story and if you have, you are looking at the story in a biased perspective. See, while God takes everything away from Job, it humbled him. When you look at the story from the point that earthly possessions are worth nothing, then you start to understand the story. While Job lost a lot of those possessions, he gained something better. His faith strengthened to a new level, and in the end it all does work out.

The thing is, you don't even understand religion, so you would obviously not care about these values. To the person who does value religion, this story does teach some moral lessons. Another is that bad things happen to good people, but I don't feel like typing that lesson all out.

I understand it just fine, and I totally get what lessons they were trying to get across with the story. I never said he was doing it just to be a dick, but for fuck's sake, it's pretty easy to argue that it's still a pretty dickish thing to do.

You can't say it would be a nice thing to do to someone. Most people would consider letting someone take away everything someone has worked his entire life for, killing all his children, and making him sick as shit as pretty hardcore mean, torture like shit.

Is that how an all loving God would seriously teach people lessons? That's horrible.

And let's not forget that God considered Job one of his best servants. Job did nothing wrong, and was a faithful follower of The Lord. Who the fuck punishes people to teach them lessons they don't even need teaching? It's not like Job was a materialistic guy or anything in the first place. That'd be like punishing your kids for cursing when they haven't cursed a day in their lives just to make sure that they know that cursing is bad. It's not that I don't understand it, it's because it's seriously fucking stupid.

And those values aren't limited to religious people anyway. Morals =/= religion. I don't place much value in material possessions either and I'm fully aware that bad things can happen to good people, and I'm as non-religious as they come. I'm just as capable of understanding that shit as any religious person. Don't be ridiculous, dude.

RNB · 06-24-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

I look forward to that. : )

I understand it just fine, and I totally get what lessons they were trying to get across with the story. I never said he was doing it just to be a dick, but for fuck's sake, it's pretty easy to argue that it's still a pretty dickish thing to do.

You can't say it would be a nice thing to do to someone. Most people would consider letting someone take away everything someone has worked his entire life for, killing all his children, and making him sick as shit as pretty hardcore mean, torture like shit.

Is that how an all loving God would seriously teach people lessons? That's horrible.

Love is not pamper people so that they become robots. God wants us to love him without him necessarily forcing us. See, without a low is it possible to experience a high?

Quote:

And let's not forget that God considered Job one of his best servants. Job did nothing wrong, and was a faithful follower of The Lord. Who the fuck punishes people to teach them lessons they don't even need teaching? It's not like Job was a materialistic guy or anything in the first place. That'd be like punishing your kids for cursing when they haven't cursed a day in their lives just to make sure that they know that cursing is bad. It's not that I don't understand it, it's because it's seriously fucking stupid.

He wasn't sinless...

Quote:

And those values aren't limited to religious people anyway. Morals =/= religion. I don't place much value in material possessions either and I'm fully aware that bad things can happen to good people, and I'm as non-religious as they come. I'm just as capable of understanding that shit as any religious person. Don't be ridiculous, dude.

I didn't mean it to come off as that. I was just saying that this is our moral in our religion. Morals aren't universal from person to person. Though most people have common morals. I am quite aware with that. There are just a lot of people who are materialistic. Christian and nonchristian.

06-24-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redneckboy

Love is not pamper people so that they become robots. God wants us to love him without him necessarily forcing us. See, without a low is it possible to experience a high?

Pretty sure love isn't to fuck over someone's life for a bit either...And Job already loved God without God having to do anything...And letting some dude kill of your kids and make you sick as shit is a little excessive, wouldn't you say?

Also, I think you're disregarding the whole bet part of this story. It's not like God was like "You know what, I'm going to teach Job a lesson, even though he's already a cool guy." He was more like "Yeah, I'll take that bet, evil Satan dude. Go ahead and fuck Job up." Come on, man. = /

Quote:

He wasn't sinless...

No shit, you're born a sinner for fuck's sake. If that's justification to hardcore fuck people up for no good reason at all, then wow. How isn't that dickish again?

Quote:

I didn't mean it to come off as that. I was just saying that this is our moral in our religion. Morals aren't universal from person to person. Though most people have common morals. I am quite aware with that. There are just a lot of people who are materialistic. Christian and nonchristian.

You were saying I didn't understand this because I'm not religious. = /

06-22-2008, 11:54 PM	#31
GAma_Oyabun Special Jounin Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: arcASIA Age: 23 Posts: 2,352 Thanks: 0 Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts	Re: Opinions on Christianity yea satan gets control of everything except for his soul, lol if it was a bet then satan is screwing himself, obviously God knew the outcome __________________ FC's owner of the Village Brawl fc ^^-----LIKE RPGS??? join Village BRAWL FC>..the original rpg fc member of the Fruits Basket Fc

06-23-2008, 12:04 AM	#32
UchihaTaijiya sublimis ab unda Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,777 Thanks: 7,387 Thanked 3,312 Times in 1,249 Posts	Re: Opinions on Christianity I haven't actually read the end. Though I'm sure God gets proven right, he must have sent the three friends or something. o.o edit - Hahaha, oh, man, I was wrong about Job's three friends. <.< /just finished reading the end. __________________ If the elephants have past lives yet are destined to always remember It's no wonder how they scream Like you and I they must have some temper And I am dreaming of them on the plains Dirtying up their beds Watching for some sign of rain to cool their hot heads And how dare that you send me that card when I'm doing all that I can do You are forcing me to remember when all I want is to just forget you If the tiger shall protect her young then tell me how did you slip by All my instincts have failed me for once I must have somehow slept the whole night And I am dreaming of them with their kill Tearing it all apart Blood dripping from their lips and teeth sinking into heart And how dare that you say you'll call When you know I need some peace of mind If you have to take sides with the animals Won't you do it with one who is kind And if the hawks in the trees need the dead If you're living you don't stand a chance For a time though you share the same bed There are only two ends to this dance You can flee with your wounds just in time or lie there as he feeds Watching yourself ripped to shreds and laughing as you bleed So for those of you falling in love keep it kind Keep it good Keep it right Throw yourself in the midst of danger but keep one eye open at night Last edited by UchihaTaijiya; 06-23-2008 at 01:02 AM.

06-23-2008, 01:27 PM	#37
Miles T Genin Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 67 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Opinions on Christianity Well, if those are your positions, I presently see nothing more for me to criticise. Whether you believe (heh) me or not, I'll state that I wasn't trying to trap you; I genuinely thought the line I refuted was your actual justification, which you seemed to put forth in your second response to this thread (if I recall correctly) without any trapping from me. Anyway, truth be told, both of us have surely been ambiguous and misinterpreted, but we seem to have come to agreement.

06-23-2008, 02:06 PM	#39
Miles T Genin Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 67 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Re: Opinions on Christianity Aye, well played. Though now I think about it, you do still of course condone religion, a position I find untenable. Expect to hear more from me sometime... =) Last edited by Miles T; 06-23-2008 at 02:09 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)