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

Forums - General - Is religion still relevant in modern society?

Andrespetmonkey on 11 November 2011
Player1x3 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Player1x3 said:
@padib
You have some patience to argue with this people. You of all people should know that its a complete waste of time. Why are you even trying? What are you hoping to achieve?

I know we had a disagreement recently (read my reply please). But you can't seriously be defending padib for some of the ridiculous things he says. Whether you're a christian or an atheist or whatever. 


Im not defending anyone. I didn't bother to read neither his or yours arguments, because really,(and I know i might come off like an arrogant asshole here) his arguments are incredibly weak in defence of theism, and yours are extremely hateful, bigoted, intolerant and misguided. Him and I, while both believe in God have COMPLETELY different views on God and Christianity. I could just as easley ask you why are you wasting your time trying to argue with him. These kinds of topics never lead anywhere, they only create bad blood between posters

I'll probably read the replay, tho i don't think i'll quote back

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I don''t think padibs arguments are incredibly week. Please read my posts. I'm far from hateful, bigoted, intolerant and misguided, I assure you. I've not even been alive long enough to be these things xD Even padib would probably back me up on that.



My Music

Around the Network
Runa216 on 11 November 2011
DélioPT said:
Runa216 said:
DélioPT said:

If being against something it considers a sin, is the same as being against the person who commits a sin, then the Church is against every single man and woman. Do you see that happening?
There is a difference: "hate" the sin, not the sinner.

it's still disgusting (and hypocritical) that the church condemns the 'sin' of homosexuality....when by their own faith, God created us all as he deemed fit, so Homosexuals were born that way.  Plus it doesn't harm anyone so they have no right to push their agenda.  

As i said before, it`s not a sin being gay, it`s living that life that is considered a sin.
Harming others is one kind of sin, harming oneself is another kind of sin. Sins aren`t just what you do to others but to yourself aswell.
And the Church isn`t here to push agendas.

*sigh*  So basically, God makes you gay, condemns acting on that, and it's YOUR job to tell others how to live their life? See? this is precisely my problem with religion, this inherent entitlement they feel to control others.  *sighs* 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

richardhutnik on 11 November 2011

It would be argued by some that religion is a byproduct of human evolutionary development, which have revealed customs and traditions that work well to preserve and improve society.  That which came about by an organic, bottom-up approach, ends up being adopted much more that some ivory tower concept.  Things like language, for example, come about as a result of this.  There are reasons why Esperanto never took off.



sales2099 on 11 November 2011

Would the world be better off if religion was out of the equation? Offcourse.

Religions disputes have been the cause of many wars and campaigns. The crusades, Spanish inquisition.......Israel vs every country that borders them.

Hell in the middle east you will be killed if you "troll" Islam in public. Now thats a fanboy!



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Dr.Grass on 11 November 2011
theprof00 said:
Dr.Grass said:
theprof00 said:
Dr.Grass said:
theprof00 said:

Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.

You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.

So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense. People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do. 

Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.

''Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.''

When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?

''You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.''

Yes I did ask that, but I didn't 'point out' what you are saying there. You are building a nice straw man there yourself aren't you?

''So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense.''

No. I believe in a different source of man's desires. There is no point in trying to cram it in here, but it is also not required for me to explain my beliefs in this context at all. I understand why you would think that the 'reasoning behind my post' doesn't make sense based on my statements before. In fact, you have seen a subtlety in my reasoning and made a rather valid assumption. Unfortunately, your assumption is wrong - my motivation stems from the fact that I cannot tolerate seeing someone being religiously against religion. ESPECIALLY if this person loses logic and common sense along the way. That is why I attack such a person, even if my method of attack seems to insinuate beliefs that are not my own.

''People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do. ''

I get this evolutionary idea, I really do. I once had to sit through 50 excruciating minutes as my computer science proffessor went on and on about the evolutionary origin of love. Yes, an explanation of the origin of these things has been found. But it's not the only explanation, and I certainly do not think it is a very good one. For me to be convinced you need to simulate the evolution of these things - that would certainly constitute proof. Anything less and you can keep your hypothesis and I'll keep my eastern philosophy (which I consider much superior).

''Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.''

No. Because you are explaining here that I'm presenting the person in a certain light - NOT his proposition. Therefore, not strictly a straw man argument.

I'm enjoying this very much btw - and I'm editing out that nasty last comment I left - it was uncalled for, and, in hindsight, possibly inaccurate.

When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?

Because you don't understand the laws of nature. You misrepresent it. If your version was true, then your description would be true, but it's not, therefore neither are you.


Since you are supporting and objective universe, whatever laws there are are independent of my knowledge of them. Hence the laws of material nature will continue as they are meant to and you end up with an independently functioning system.

You really are circling the drain here - that was a pretty poor comment. 

You're pathetic, and your only recourse is a typical religious demonization of the opposition.

You questioned why areligious would have any reason to be moral people, citing that according to the clinical world, it would be hypocritical to do anything but take advantage. You have no idea how humans work (a social species) and frankly this is not worth my time.

When you're ready to accept that you know less than you think you know, then we'll talk.

Well I don't have much of an opinion of your line of reasoning either.

You call me pathetic and say I know little - that's fine.

I know I wouldn't mind copying this whole conversation and asking someone to make his verdict. I doubt whether you feel the same.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 11 November 2011
sales2099 said:
Would the world be better off if religion was out of the equation? Offcourse.

Religions disputes have been the cause of many wars and campaigns. The crusades, Spanish inquisition.......Israel vs every country that borders them.

Hell in the middle east you will be killed if you "troll" Islam in public. Now thats a fanboy!

And replaced with what?  You would suggest that society be totally tempered and generate its values out of a consumerist driven economy where corporations pander to every base desire, and the only thing that informs the process is the base wants of individuals?  In short, throw out religion and replace it with the Home Shopping Network?

Historically, you have seen for centuries banking interests and public debt funding wars.  To ignore these elements is to be short-sighted and not be able to see an effective solution to problems.



theprof00 on 11 November 2011
Dr.Grass said:
theprof00 said:
Dr.Grass said:
theprof00 said:
Dr.Grass said:
theprof00 said:

Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.

You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.

So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense. People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do. 

Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.

''Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.''

When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?

''You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.''

Yes I did ask that, but I didn't 'point out' what you are saying there. You are building a nice straw man there yourself aren't you?

''So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense.''

No. I believe in a different source of man's desires. There is no point in trying to cram it in here, but it is also not required for me to explain my beliefs in this context at all. I understand why you would think that the 'reasoning behind my post' doesn't make sense based on my statements before. In fact, you have seen a subtlety in my reasoning and made a rather valid assumption. Unfortunately, your assumption is wrong - my motivation stems from the fact that I cannot tolerate seeing someone being religiously against religion. ESPECIALLY if this person loses logic and common sense along the way. That is why I attack such a person, even if my method of attack seems to insinuate beliefs that are not my own.

''People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do. ''

I get this evolutionary idea, I really do. I once had to sit through 50 excruciating minutes as my computer science proffessor went on and on about the evolutionary origin of love. Yes, an explanation of the origin of these things has been found. But it's not the only explanation, and I certainly do not think it is a very good one. For me to be convinced you need to simulate the evolution of these things - that would certainly constitute proof. Anything less and you can keep your hypothesis and I'll keep my eastern philosophy (which I consider much superior).

''Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.''

No. Because you are explaining here that I'm presenting the person in a certain light - NOT his proposition. Therefore, not strictly a straw man argument.

I'm enjoying this very much btw - and I'm editing out that nasty last comment I left - it was uncalled for, and, in hindsight, possibly inaccurate.

When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?

Because you don't understand the laws of nature. You misrepresent it. If your version was true, then your description would be true, but it's not, therefore neither are you.


Since you are supporting and objective universe, whatever laws there are are independent of my knowledge of them. Hence the laws of material nature will continue as they are meant to and you end up with an independently functioning system.

You really are circling the drain here - that was a pretty poor comment. 

You're pathetic, and your only recourse is a typical religious demonization of the opposition.

You questioned why areligious would have any reason to be moral people, citing that according to the clinical world, it would be hypocritical to do anything but take advantage. You have no idea how humans work (a social species) and frankly this is not worth my time.

When you're ready to accept that you know less than you think you know, then we'll talk.

Well I don't have much of an opinion of your line of reasoning either.

You call me pathetic and say I know little - that's fine.

I know I wouldn't mind copying this whole conversation and asking someone to make his verdict. I doubt whether you feel the same.

I'm completely fine with that, which is why I posted it in a public forum.



tolu619 on 11 November 2011

I'll say this knowing fully well that most people won't understand. To the few that do/will, it's worth being said(besides, Runa's reply might be fun):
Jesus came to destroy religion and replace it with a relationship with God. Unfortunately, many things in the Bible have been twisted to spawn so many different religions. However, true Christianity is not religious.
Religion is based on laws:Dos and Don'ts. Christianity is based on a relationship founded on love(religion never presents a father-son relationship but a deity-servant one). Anyone interested in a more in-depth explanation of this can read Romans chapter 10. I won't answer any questions on this posted on this thread unless I'm convinced that it's a question from someone who actually wants to hear more, and not just scoff.
By the way, the guy that said that part of civilization implies people with different beliefs being able to live together makes a good point. I guess it's just our bad human nature that ruins everything, and will always find an excuse to back up evil(whether its religious beliefs or something totally different).



http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7530/gohansupersaiyan239du.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> http://www.deviantart.com/download/109426596/Shippuden_Team_7_by_Tsubaki_chan.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> http://image.hotdog.hu/_data/members0/772/1047772/images/kepek_illusztraciok/Bleach%2520-%2520Ishida%2520Uryuu%25201.jpg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

3DS: tolu619

Wii U: FoyehBoys

Vita, PS3 and PS4: FoyehBoys

XBoxOne: Tolu619

Switch: Tolu619

Kugali - We publish comics from all across Africa and the diaspora, and we also push the boundaries of Augmented Reality storytelling. Check us out!

My thread for teaching VGC some Nigerian slangs

Paul on 11 November 2011
Dr.Grass said:
Paul said:
Dr.Grass said:

 

 

You please tell me what motivation is there for a person who has adopted the non-theistic world view to have any morals at all?

I like my children, wife, pizza and video games. They help me lead a well balanced and happy life.

Science itself is a disappointment if one is looking for a coherent explanation of the universe and life. It's quite simply not a proper explanation.

I prefer the explanation, "god did it". I find it brings so much closure to questions about life, the universe and why your brain doesn't function. It's relatively short and you don't have to think about anything. Science is hard and you have to spend so much time observing stuff.




And what if you stop liking your wife and children? What amazes me very much is that people who claim to adhere to the most logical world-view have no answers when it comes to the basic issues of desire and pleasure.

In fact, such a veil is pulled over personhood, consciousness and mind (as a substantial entity), that the explanation for these things gets absorbed into weak arguments like:

''...I like my children, wife, pizza and video games. They help me lead a well balanced and happy life.''

Which brings us to your sarcastic ''god did it'' output. You see, you may look at certain religions and the people who partake therein and extrapolate that this is what religion means. Sure, you probably have not experienced evidence that there might be a truly transcendent aspect to our existence which is only reachable by an adjustment of consciousness and a reinforcement of advanced philosophical ideas. But with the majority of the average modern person being mostly exposed to sensual impulses that are in direct contradiction to the principles behind such lofty theological ideas, you have to ask yourself whether you have actually tried to look at it objectively.

''Science is hard and you have to spend so much time observing stuff.''

You are very unfortunate if you believe all theists are this undeveloped.

And science isn't that hard.

I believe evolution as currently accepted in biology is the reason why I like my family and why it is unlikely that I will stop liking them.

you probably have not experienced evidence that there might be a truly transcendent aspect to our existence which is only reachable by an adjustment of consciousness and a reinforcement of advanced philosophical ideas. I do hope that I don't suffer any trauma or illness to my brain that would cause these delusions.

Science isn't that hard as a methodology of trying to understand things, but the things you are trying to understand are incredibly complex for our limited brains.

The limitation of the human brain is clearly exposed in this thread, including my own posts. At least Runa216 shows some hope for humanity.

 



Runa216 on 11 November 2011
tolu619 said:
I'll say this knowing fully well that most people won't understand. To the few that do/will, it's worth being said(besides, Runa's reply might be fun):
Jesus came to destroy religion and replace it with a relationship with God. Unfortunately, many things in the Bible have been twisted to spawn so many different religions. However, true Christianity is not religious.
Religion is based on laws:Dos and Don'ts. Christianity is based on a relationship founded on love(religion never presents a father-son relationship but a deity-servant one). Anyone interested in a more in-depth explanation of this can read Romans chapter 10. I won't answer any questions on this posted on this thread unless I'm convinced that it's a question from someone who actually wants to hear more, and not just scoff.
By the way, the guy that said that part of civilization implies people with different beliefs being able to live together makes a good point. I guess it's just our bad human nature that ruins everything, and will always find an excuse to back up evil(whether its religious beliefs or something totally different).

Curious, is this just a personal theory or do you have citations to back it up?  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android