Get Rid of All Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Is this a lesson in how to say nothing in 500 words or less? What was the point of this?
You’re wrong, and Kamui is right. Your not putting forth any facts, historical accuracy, or reason behind your posts, they are almost complete emotion. Your contention that secularism is more peaceful or would be a better way of life based on history and terrible acts of religion past just doesn’t pan out in reality. [/quote]

I don’t think you actually read the discussion and jumped in at the end to make a judgment on it. How one could read my posts and just see emotion and yet read Kamui’s posts and not see his emotion (and lack of facts) means you had your mind made up before reading OR you did not read closely.

I don’t know which one you failed to do, but you didn’t participate in the discussion and if you read it apparently you REALLY failed to read it closely.

Methinks you wanted to give credit to someone you agreed with regardless of their clarity and positions.

Below you will see an initial response from Kamui which is pure emotion and has 0 facts. Weirdly it was in response to a post of mine that was almost all facts. Either you failed to read the whole discussion closely or you are unsure of the definition of emotion and facts.

[quote]To produce this “wealth” and this wellfare, we have eaten everything our parents had produced during the “glorious thirty”.
Yet we are unwilling to treat our old people respectfully. Let alone their old ideas and their old values.

Worst, we are already feasting with the future work of our children and grand-children, who will be our posthumous slaves for their whole lifetimes.
We all know it, and we don’t care.[/quote]

I’m not sitting here saying I’m correct over him (I don’t consider myself the judge of those things, I leave that to the people like you and Push who apparently feel the need to do such things), but you sure have said some things that are demonstrably untrue in your unnecessary and trivial “analysis” of our discussion.

Participate more, judge less. We’d all have more fun then. [/quote]

No, I didn’t read it all just read the last few, I figured that was quite enough for getting the jist. You were advocating that morality is a social dictate that changes as time goes by and religion is an old antiquated paradigm that hinders social progress and causes strife because of it’s backwardness. Am I wrong?

242

[quote]pat wrote:

No, I didn’t read it all just read the last few, I figured that was quite enough for getting the jist. You were advocating that morality is a social dictate that changes as time goes by and religion is an old antiquated paradigm that hinders social progress and causes strife because of it’s backwardness. Am I wrong?[/quote]

Yes you’re wrong.

So in the future before talking about how my arguments lacked so much make sure you have an idea of what my arguments are before you criticize me and put me down.

I had two people in this thread not read my thoughts and not follow the discussion and yet jump in and criticize my thoughts and intelligence when they hadn’t read closely the discussion.

Not only do I not see the need for random people to pass judgment on a discussion they were not involved in, (I don’t know who that is supposed to help) but those random people didn’t even follow the discussion closely.

Push is a troll, but you aren’t Pat. I ain’t even mad at ya, just slightly annoyed :wink:

244

Best explanation I’ve ever heard on religion

245

[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
Best explanation I’ve ever heard on religion

[/quote]

/Looks at avatar.

I bet.

246

I did find his Oscar acceptance speech interesting, considering that character.

247

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I did find his Oscar acceptance speech interesting, considering that character.[/quote]

I give him a lot of credit for saying that in Hollywood. That is almost as much of a blacklist-able offense as being openly moderate or conservative.

Also kind of points to his acting ability. He can play someone that is really the opposite of who he is pretty damn well.

As to the clip, pardon me while I don’t take an HBO’s depiction of anything that isn’t toe the line liberal serious. It is like thinking Oliver Stone puts out anything remotely close to historically accurate.

248

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I did find his Oscar acceptance speech interesting, considering that character.[/quote]

I give him a lot of credit for saying that in Hollywood. That is almost as much of a blacklist-able offense as being openly moderate or conservative.

Also kind of points to his acting ability. He can play someone that is really the opposite of who he is pretty damn well.

As to the clip, pardon me while I don’t take an HBO’s depiction of anything that isn’t toe the line liberal serious. It is like thinking Oliver Stone puts out anything remotely close to historically accurate. [/quote]

To be fair to True Detective, MM’s character is being openly portrayed as a hypocrite in that series, and this speech is an important part of that characterization.

249

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I did find his Oscar acceptance speech interesting, considering that character.[/quote]

I give him a lot of credit for saying that in Hollywood. That is almost as much of a blacklist-able offense as being openly moderate or conservative.

Also kind of points to his acting ability. He can play someone that is really the opposite of who he is pretty damn well.

As to the clip, pardon me while I don’t take an HBO’s depiction of anything that isn’t toe the line liberal serious. It is like thinking Oliver Stone puts out anything remotely close to historically accurate. [/quote]

To be fair to True Detective, MM’s character is being openly portrayed as a hypocrite in that series, and this speech is an important part of that characterization.[/quote]

I don’t know. I gave the show a chance, but as with Game of Thrones the softcore porn caused me to write it off.

250

First, Christian photographers have to attend gay weddings, now…
“Access to hormonal birth control hasn?t typically been a goal of the gay rights movement. But after a near miss on an anti-gay bill in Arizona last week, LGBT advocacy groups are rallying around a Supreme Court birth control case, arguing that gay people?s rights will be collateral damage if the court rules that for-profit businesses do not have to provide contraceptives to female employees.
Why gay rights groups care about a Supreme Court birth control case”

It’s clear there will no negotiation of our surrender. Maybe the UN is actually onto something.

251

[quote]Sloth wrote:
First, Christian photographers have to attend gay weddings, now…
“Access to hormonal birth control hasn?t typically been a goal of the gay rights movement. But after a near miss on an anti-gay bill in Arizona last week, LGBT advocacy groups are rallying around a Supreme Court birth control case, arguing that gay people?s rights will be collateral damage if the court rules that for-profit businesses do not have to provide contraceptives to female employees.
Why gay rights groups care about a Supreme Court birth control case”

It’s clear there will no negotiation of our surrender. Maybe the UN is actually onto something.[/quote]

Shouldn’t this be great news for the crowd that was so eager to celebrate kamui’s views on the dire problem that is overpopulation?

I would think one would be happy that finally someone is “doing something” about that problem.*

*Tongue in cheek of course and largely aimed at the people who didn’t even bother to read the debate we were having.

252

Kamui has repeatedly said he has no views on the dire problem that is overpopulation.

Kamui stated that there is 860+ millions of people in slums today. Which is a fact. And an abomination.
You, cynically, linked it to population increase.

I remembered you that a decrease in proportion doesn’t morally excuse an increase in number.
Which is, again, a fucking fact.

The point is that today’s relative (ie proportional) progress has an absolute objective cost.

this implies that an economical or technological progress is not necessarily a moral progress.
Your metrics may be good, but they won’t ever mmeasure morality, because a crime remmains a crime even if the beneficiaries outnumbers the victims.

253

@pat

Religion in the ancient world was entirely polytheistic. When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. Rome worshipped foreign gods from across the empire. Jews were largely tolerated because they paid tax filling the coffers of the RomAn treasury.

However when a small sect of evangelists who worshipped a dead criminal executed by a Roman governor and believed they were drinking and eating his literal blood and flesh they took to persecution. As Gibbon said: Many pagans held that the neglect of the old gods of their fathers who had made Rome strong was responsible for the disasters overtaking the Mediterranean world.

254

[quote]kamui wrote:

Kamui has repeatedly said he has no views on the dire problem that is overpopulation.

[/quote]

“When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death.”

Thomas Hobbes

And don’t blame me for saying that!

255

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Kamui has repeatedly said he has no views on the dire problem that is overpopulation.

[/quote]

“When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death.”

Thomas Hobbes

And don’t blame me for saying that![/quote]

Damn we agree.

256

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades | The Independent | The Independent .

257

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I did find his Oscar acceptance speech interesting, considering that character.[/quote]

I give him a lot of credit for saying that in Hollywood. That is almost as much of a blacklist-able offense as being openly moderate or conservative.

Also kind of points to his acting ability. He can play someone that is really the opposite of who he is pretty damn well.

As to the clip, pardon me while I don’t take an HBO’s depiction of anything that isn’t toe the line liberal serious. It is like thinking Oliver Stone puts out anything remotely close to historically accurate. [/quote]

To be fair to True Detective, MM’s character is being openly portrayed as a hypocrite in that series, and this speech is an important part of that characterization.[/quote]

I don’t know. I gave the show a chance, but as with Game of Thrones the softcore porn caused me to write it off. [/quote]

Yeah, there is some graphic stuff in there.

Definitely fair in its assessment of MM’s hypocrisy though.

258

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. [/quote]
That isn’t true.

259

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No, I didn’t read it all just read the last few, I figured that was quite enough for getting the jist. You were advocating that morality is a social dictate that changes as time goes by and religion is an old antiquated paradigm that hinders social progress and causes strife because of it’s backwardness. Am I wrong?[/quote]

Yes you’re wrong.

So in the future before talking about how my arguments lacked so much make sure you have an idea of what my arguments are before you criticize me and put me down.

I had two people in this thread not read my thoughts and not follow the discussion and yet jump in and criticize my thoughts and intelligence when they hadn’t read closely the discussion.

Not only do I not see the need for random people to pass judgment on a discussion they were not involved in, (I don’t know who that is supposed to help) but those random people didn’t even follow the discussion closely.

Push is a troll, but you aren’t Pat. I ain’t even mad at ya, just slightly annoyed :wink: [/quote]

Fair enough, I keep my nose out of it then. It seemed that you were advocating moral relativism. That is a pet peeve of mine and when I see it, I feel the need to stomp it out, whether or not it’s my place to do so. But you are right, I have not been in this from the beginning, I do not know all that transpired, so I won’t comment any further.

260

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

@pat

Religion in the ancient world was entirely polytheistic. When Rome wanted to divine the future they traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle as they had no auspices of their own. Rome worshipped foreign gods from across the empire. Jews were largely tolerated because they paid tax filling the coffers of the RomAn treasury.

However when a small sect of evangelists who worshipped a dead criminal executed by a Roman governor and believed they were drinking and eating his literal blood and flesh they took to persecution. As Gibbon said: Many pagans held that the neglect of the old gods of their fathers who had made Rome strong was responsible for the disasters overtaking the Mediterranean world.[/quote]

Not all religion in the ancient world was entirely polytheistic. But aside from that, Rome tended to be politically speaking, religiously apathetic. If they took you over and you had gods you worshipped, they preferred not to want to piss your gods off, just in case they were real.
The Christian case in Rome is an interesting one, mainly because the Romans tended towards religious tolerance. So I wonder why they picked in the Christians? Nero was a bonafide nut, but I wonder if it was because he perceived them weak and easily stomped out? I don’t know, guess I have some homework to do.