By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

The_vagabond7 on 25 April 2011

just a fun fact, there is actually research into a historical robin hood, with a number of possibilities. However the name Rob, robyn, and robert where very common names, as was the surname hood. There are a number of historical records of Robin Hoods or very close opproximations from that era and from that region, even some that were wanted outlaws. The degree that any of these men may have contributed to the legend of robin hood however is unknown.

What's funny about this though, is if you took the stories of robin hood to be obvious fact that you believed in, then the fact that there are historical robin hoods from the time the legends started, that were in fact outlaws would only lend credence to the idea that the legends are based on a historical character. But if you assume they are just legends, then it can simply be written off as coincidental. One's prejudices play into whether or not any credence can be given to a historical robin hood.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 25 April 2011
The_vagabond7 said:

By all means pizzahut go after atheism. That's not religious oppression or evil theocracy. The religious oppression and evil theocracy part comes in when religions try to use the government to mandate people obey their particular views. Preach them all you want (as long as you don't mind some debate), but using legislation to force the views on people that don't share them is religious oppression. Considerable difference.


I dont wanna go after anything, I (unlike many other people here) respect other people's beleifs and I would never try to attack them. But I will always defend my beleifs when they are in discussion.



vlad321 on 25 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:

No, it`s because it contains the words from God and Jesus, along with his life. And that is defining to those who believe. That`s why we call it sacred and not just very important or very meaningful.


Ok and King Arthur contains the words of Arthur and Lancelot and Merlin, among a bunch of others. Why isn't that sacred?


Because its made up by man. And people believe New Testament are the words of son of God .A God or higher power is something people believed in ever since their brain was developed enough to think. It all comes own to fatih, after all (weather you believe God is made up by man or higher power really exists)

Why is it made up, yet the bible isn't? I can also say the EXACT SAME thing about the New Testament, it's all made up. Whatever defense you apply to the bible right there, I can apply to king Arthur as well.

Also, ever since a brain was developed people have desired to find patterns, and understanding, of how nature acts. Given the primitive nature of people at that point, the only thing they could imagine is a higher diety. Now that we can actually observe and create pretty good models for many things in nature, we no longer need such an ignorant way of describing the world.


What exaclty is false about New Testament? Did you even read it? Stories like Jesus's resurection, I can see why peole find it doubtfull but the point of the New Testament are the teachings of christ and the morals of Christianity. Some stories in the Bible usually have a moral message, but they dont nececarly have to be true. Its the moral message that comes out of it that matters. Stuff like ''walking on water'' or ''truning water into wine'' are just symbolics and dont really matter if they are true or not. Its the God's word that matters. There is also historical evidence for the existance of Christ. As far as i know there is no evidence for Lancelot and Merlin, is there?  So Bible holds a lot more historical credit and value than King Arthur.

 


Then why do you give a shit about the bible and not just create your own morals. Morals based on logic and practicallity, not based on fear of an asshole god who will send you to hell if you don't follow his rules? If you admit that a lot of the things in the bible are bullshit, why can't you believe the others are as well? Why do you need untruths to tell you what you should think, when you can observe the world with your own two eyes and ears?

There is also historical evidence for the existance of a King Arthur. I am sure he may have had some knight named Lacelot and an advisor named Merlin. SO no, the bible has jsut as much validity as King Arthur. I may be mistaken, but Robin Hood may have been based on a real band of robbers too, I'll have to look into that.

Edit: Also feeding a huge group with one fish and bread. I will admit one thing that I have gathered from the bible, Jesus had an amazing sleigh of hand.

Edit 2: You are also basically stating that people who don't believe in god have no morals. Yet I dare you to go to a prison, and tell me just how disproportionate the amount of people who believe in a god are vs those who don't.

Wow, you finally showed your true colors. Nice. Im suprised it took you this long to snap tho. I follow Christ's morals because I think they are right. I believe Christ was the only person that was without sin on this planet, (as Bible tells us) and that is why I follow him. And I sure as hell dont follow him out of fear. Dont use that judgemental and generalazing crap on me. I never once admited things i Bible are bullshit, stop puting words in my mouth , and please use diffrent kind of language when discussing this matter. You completly missed my point on my entire post. I argued for the point and purpose of the New Testament, and that some of the stories there didnt have to happen in real life to be taken in consideration. The moral than comes out of it matters. The problem is, you see New Testament as the describtion of the religon itself, I see it as the book that shows us the way of living your life as a Christian. Christianity isnt about turning water into wine or Jesus walking on water, its about his teachings he preached upon the world. And THAT is what matters. 

And do you care to show us that evidence?  Arthur and his wizard Merlin exist in medievil poems and stories, folklore and literary invention where they fight dragons and unnatural monsters and enemies.  Unlike Jesus Christ who exists in actual files of human hisotry,  so much for that. I wont even dignify Robbin Hood with an answer...

 


I didn't realize I was hiding the fact I think any religion is full of bullshit and falseties. In fact I am fairly sure I wrote in one of my posts that all religions are wrong (read: bullshit).

No matter how you define any religion (do you honestly think christinity is the only one that spouts about teachings and crap?) the argument remains. Why are those teachings better than others? What gives any validity of those teachings over any other teachings, from any religion or book ever written by humans?

As for king arthur, I think there is even a wikipedia entry about it with a whole bunch of evidence of how the story is based on some person or another. I just got my information from National Geographic.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

The_vagabond7 on 25 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

By all means pizzahut go after atheism. That's not religious oppression or evil theocracy. The religious oppression and evil theocracy part comes in when religions try to use the government to mandate people obey their particular views. Preach them all you want (as long as you don't mind some debate), but using legislation to force the views on people that don't share them is religious oppression. Considerable difference.


I dont wanna go after anything, I (unlike many other people here) respect other people's beleifs and I would never try to attack them. But I will always defend my beleifs when they are in discussion.

That had nothing to do with what I was discussing. When I said "Go after atheism" that was merely a response to the assertion that if you were to go after atheism, it would be viewed as religious oppression and evil theocracy. The encouragement to "go after atheism" was meant to show that it is not offensive to question an atheist as to the merits of his atheism, as it should not be offensive to question a religious person as to the merits of their beliefs.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

vlad321 on 25 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

A culture of inquiry and reason, does not deem this sane in the free market of ideas anymore. It used to be it didn't matter how stupid what you said was, if you followed it with "and that's my religion" it automatically demanded respect. In the information age this is no longer the case. Ideas and beliefs are meant to be kicked around, abused, held under the microscope, and then tossed out or changed if found faulty. If you tell someone that their views on corporate regulation are absurd, then it's ok. If you tell someone that you disagree with their views of lateral gene transfer and it's effects on long term evolution, you go to the drawing board. If you tell somebody that you think that a jewish zombie saving us from a talking snake that made a woman eat an apple is dumb, then they will scream persecution and bigotry.Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, but certain ideas have had a priviledged status for so long that ones that hold them think they are beyond criticism.

 

It doesn't help that alot of religions have built in persecution complexes, so if somebody says "that's dumb" the recepient can immediately respond "my beliefs said you would say that, so I'm even more right! Ridicule me some more, my beliefs said you would do that too! I'm being martyred!!!!". Saying an idea or belief is dumb is not bigotry or persecution however. African Americans were hung and burned on crosses, weren't given legal rights and suffered numerous atrocities at the hands of bigots. Somebody saying "Let's debate the merits of bible's morality." or "Taking a literalist view of the bible is ignorant at best." is not persecution. But again and again this is seen as "militant" behavior, or gross "intolerance". If you think that is militant and intolerant, consider yourself lucky enough to live in a time where that can be said with a straight face.

Also, I take exception to the idea that people single out christians. This is confirmation bias at it's finest. Statistically there are far more christians on this site than muslims, of course there is going to be more discussion of the bible than the koran. I certainly don't think the koran is any more sane than the bible, but opprotunities to debate that point are few and far between. In fact looking at the topic "what religion are you" 47 checked christian, 13 checked muslim, 2 hindus, 2 buddhists, and 116 non-religious. Now just from a mathematical standpoint why do you think there are more topics about debating christianity than say...the Vedas?

Also saying "people are only willing to pick on a religion of love and peace" while claiming people only attack christians shows considerable bigotry and prejudice towards other religions. Just pointing that out.


Apparently, atheism has its own definition of free speech: When I attack you, it's just criticism. When you attack me, you are practicing RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION AAAARGGH THE EVIL THEOCRACY!!!

Remember how in one of my first posts here I mentioned that we don't know jack shit so any idea concieved by humans has nearly 0 probability of happening? Basically, yes atheists also have almost 0 chance probability of being right. However they have a nearly infinite more chance of being right than anyone who believes in a given religion. Why? It's simple really. For an atheist to be wrong there has to exist some creature that crated and controls the universe, literally ANY creature, not the creature as defined by christians or muslims or hindus. For a given religious person not to be right, their specific version of god has to be wrong, and religion's definition of god are very specific.

So basically, both are wrong, it's just that the religious person is a hell of a lot more wrong than an atheist.


Not only does that post have absoulutely nothing to do with my post but its also incredibly false. In Abrahamic religons, God is the same for Jews, Muslims and Christinas, they all believe in the same God.Muhammed himself said so, Jeusus as well, and both of their religions came from Judism. So abrahamic religions covers 3.5 billion faiths on Earth. Hindus dont believe in God, they believe in Gods, and as far as I know, they dont believe in Hell either.They believe in reincarnation. So that covers 800 million faiths . Budhists also dont believe in Hell, so that covers 1.3 billion faiths. Most of other insignificant religions (such as traditional african or south/north american religons) dont beleive in afterlife, rather they believe in a spirit living on Earth in some form /at least the religions I've heard about on Discovery channel) so that covers the rest of faiths. Anything else I missed? I think I coverd 95% of religous world on Earth, correct me If i am wrong.


What point are you making? That what the majority thinks is correct? Do you want me to draw you a graph as to why, relative to each other not in the grand scheme of things, atheists are just less wrong than religious people? There is a larger amount of infinite things that could have happened that aren't a being like the jewish god, than there are infinite amount of things that could have happened that do involve a being.

Edit: Forgot how my last sentence started a tthe end, fixed now.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
DélioPT on 25 April 2011
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:

When people take offense it`s not because they are insecure, at least not always. It`s because when you  habe something you hold so dearly, it becomes a part of you and "insulting" - not saying it was what you said - does hurt the person or people related to it. It`s like saying something bad about you bothers, parentes, girlfriend ans one ends up getting offended aswell. It`s like that.
What you did was take something "sacred", something that has all the value and meaning to religious people and say that it`s like any other book. To religious people it`s like saying what they believe and hols sacred means nothing, you know?
As i said, even if people don`t believe, we should always try to understand that somethings, no matter what they are, are... well, sacred and in this case it does relate to a deep understanding.

I get it that a non believer sees the Bible like any given book, but even then, what that book is supposed to mean is a very different thing from a fairy tale or whatever try to significate. They serve different purposes and exist in different contexts.

That`s all that i was trying to say.

 

If you say something bad about my siblings, and it's true, I will actually go ahead and beat the shit out of my brother to knock some sense into him, depending on what was said. No reason to be offended by something that is true, as I said that is just a sign of someone who hasn't thought things through/

The different meaning of the bible that you mention is goven solely by people. People can easily give the same meaning to fairy tales. In fact, as of this point right now, I deem fairy tales as sacred of me and anyone who says they aren't true is a heretic. Now it stands on the same ground as the bible. Convince me of why my sacred stories are not sacred and true, but the bible's are. A bunch of them even taught me many things, especially Aesop.

Even if it`s true doesn`t mean it won`t hurt.
Actually, the meaning of the Bible comes from above. You "understand" it and then you embrace it´s meaning.
Who said anything about being true or not? I was talking only about why something sacred is to be respected, not if it´s true or not.
The Bible speaks about God and humanity and how they are entwined. Does it still stand in the same ground?

 



DélioPT on 25 April 2011

Actually, this thread turned out to be, once again, a good example for the lack of tolerance and respect for other people`s views... once again.



vlad321 on 25 April 2011
DélioPT said:
vlad321 said:
DélioPT said:

When people take offense it`s not because they are insecure, at least not always. It`s because when you  habe something you hold so dearly, it becomes a part of you and "insulting" - not saying it was what you said - does hurt the person or people related to it. It`s like saying something bad about you bothers, parentes, girlfriend ans one ends up getting offended aswell. It`s like that.
What you did was take something "sacred", something that has all the value and meaning to religious people and say that it`s like any other book. To religious people it`s like saying what they believe and hols sacred means nothing, you know?
As i said, even if people don`t believe, we should always try to understand that somethings, no matter what they are, are... well, sacred and in this case it does relate to a deep understanding.

I get it that a non believer sees the Bible like any given book, but even then, what that book is supposed to mean is a very different thing from a fairy tale or whatever try to significate. They serve different purposes and exist in different contexts.

That`s all that i was trying to say.

 

If you say something bad about my siblings, and it's true, I will actually go ahead and beat the shit out of my brother to knock some sense into him, depending on what was said. No reason to be offended by something that is true, as I said that is just a sign of someone who hasn't thought things through/

The different meaning of the bible that you mention is goven solely by people. People can easily give the same meaning to fairy tales. In fact, as of this point right now, I deem fairy tales as sacred of me and anyone who says they aren't true is a heretic. Now it stands on the same ground as the bible. Convince me of why my sacred stories are not sacred and true, but the bible's are. A bunch of them even taught me many things, especially Aesop.

Even if it`s true doesn`t mean it won`t hurt.
Actually, the meaning of the Bible comes from above. You "understand" it and then you embrace it´s meaning.
Who said anything about being true or not? I was talking only about why something sacred is to be respected, not if it´s true or not.
The Bible speaks about God and humanity and how they are entwined. Does it still stand in the same ground?

 

Yeah it does, because I am a rational being who understands that human can err and my brother is human. Therefore he can have fallacies, some of which I would literally break his rib to remove. It is just plain stupid on my part to take offense to something that is true.

I am also sorry, this is wehre we disagree. Just because I lay out untruths doesn't mean I am disrespecting something. It means that I am laying out facts about a belief that happen to not agree with said belief. I don't care whether the belief is sacred or not. No one should take offense to given facts that go against their beliefs. If they do they should just change them to something whose facts don't offend them.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 on 25 April 2011
DélioPT said:

Actually, this thread turned out to be, once again, a good example for the lack of tolerance and respect for other people`s views... once again.


I don't think you know what tolerence and respect is. Just because I tell someone that aspects of their belief are wrong for given reasons doesn't mean I disrespect them or don't tolerate them. It just means that the belief has holes in it. Only the person can decide whether he feels disrespected. At that point it's a personal problem for him, not me.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

FaRmLaNd on 25 April 2011

If our society's built themselves around the notion that you have the right to not be offended then we would be completely unable to teach, argue or propagate anything in the public or private square.

The earth is round? That offends flat earthers. The earth is flat? That offends round eathers. We evolved? That offends creationists. We were created but the earth is billions of years old? That offends young earth creationists.

Boo hoo.

We have a free society that has ideas that compete with each other. Being "hurt" is a neccesary byproduct of having freedom of speech.