Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Arx]

Lobotomy?

I sometimes think so. I've probably railed at length about how 'fundamentalist' 'Christianity' is, depending on the person, often only tangentially based off the Bible.

[Loud Whispers]

Amerifundies need to read some St. Augustine

[smjjames]

That's basically why the reformation happened.

I thought the reformation happened in part because the Church had essentially become corrupt?

[origamiscienceguy]

That's basically why the reformation happened.

I thought the reformation happened in part because the Church had essentially become corrupt?

Yes, people were not happy that the people in power (the pope, bishops) were the only ones that could actually read the bible, so they could basically get the people to do whatever they wanted by saying the bible allowed it. (For example, during the crusades, the pope said that the bible only forbade killing Christians, but killing Muslims was perfectly fine.) Then, when bibles were finally translated, people were like "oh crap! We've been lied to!" And then the reformation happened.

[Sheb]

That's basically why the reformation happened.

I thought the reformation happened in part because the Church had essentially become corrupt?

Yes, people were not happy that the people in power (the pope, bishops) were the only ones that could actually read the bible, so they could basically get the people to do whatever they wanted by saying the bible allowed it. (For example, during the crusades, the pope said that the bible only forbade killing Christians, but killing Muslims was perfectly fine.) Then, when bibles were finally translated, people were like "oh crap! We've been lied to!" And then the reformation happened.

Whig history as its finest.

[SirQuiamus]

Amerifundies need to read some St. Augustine

You mean the part where he tells you to keep interpreting the bible over and over again until it starts to mean what it should mean if it had been written by proper Scotsmanned Christians and not a bunch of mushroom-eating, goat-humping, cave-dwelling crackpots? Sounds about right.

Take heed, fundamentalists: Exegesis is how you turn spittle-flecked "holy books" into self-consistent religious doctrines that foster good behaviour instead of justifying lunacy, and it is therefore no bloody wonder that certain religious groups without viable exegetical traditions are causing so much bloody trouble in the world today.

[That Wolf]

Dont you dare call mushroom eaters crack pots! I am throughly offended, there are 4 of us, well maybe 4, a solid 1 1/2 and we will rise up and destroy your planet!
I am wrathful and my revenge stew is almost ready to be served, now what starch do you want? Potatoes or Rice?
Tremble before my flavour full revenge that has been slow cooking for 4 hours the meat of it is falling apart and my juliene carrots are aldente, screw you man screw you.

[SirQuiamus]

I'm tempted to respond with kebabmushroompasta, but I think we should try avoid the shitposting spiral for a change. :V

[Rolepgeek]

Seriously, guys.

You're not even trying.

You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?

Steelmanning your opponent's argument, and then proving it wrong. Have you tried that? Try acting as though you are a devout, intelligent Christian. It is entirely possible to be very intelligent, and still religious. They are not mutually exclusive.

Also to note: there are 2 billion Christians in the world, in a vast number of different sects, and there have been several wars and many many instances of persecution between those sects. Trying to say 'well all Christian fundamentalists believe X way' is just as much a Scotsman argument as 'no True Christian'. Just in the reverse direction.

[Graknorke]

Hoo boy D4E, you have just committed one of the biggest possible errors regarding thinking about infinity and probability. There's infinite real numbers between 1 and 10 but none of them are 11.

What? My logic was pretty much infinity * random small number = infinity, albeit a smaller one than the first one.

You're assuming there is a chance of it at all. For all you know it could be literally impossible. It could also be entirely inevitable. Depending on the types of universes that can exist (since we're already assuming there's every possible one, which might also not be a thing) and how you define 'god-like' (Since AFAIK there's no dictionary limit besides being worshipped).

[Bohandas]

Here's something I just wrote for a Yahoo Answers question challenging people to disprove the Christian god. Unfortunately I forgot my Yahoo password and couldn't post it there so I'm pasting it here instead because I don't want to lpse the effort I spent writing it:

"The "Problem of Evil" disproves most orthodox descriptions of the Christian God. God is generally held to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, and this is inconsistent with the existence of evil. For evil to exist god would either have to be unable to stop all of it (in which case he would not be omnipotent), not care about stopping all of it (in which case he would not be omnibenevolent), or not know about the instances he doesn't doesn't stop (in which case he would not be omniscient). Some, in order to get around this, would redefine evil to be synonomous with the absence of god, but this would require that god not be omnipresent"

[SirQuiamus]

You know what's a lot more difficult than 'hurrhurr Christians are dumb' or 'Some christians think this way, therefore all Christians are terrible people'?

Where did you get that from?

Steelmanning your opponent's argument, and then proving it wrong. Have you tried that? Try acting as though you are a devout, intelligent Christian. It is entirely possible to be very intelligent, and still religious. They are not mutually exclusive.

Okay, I'll do just that, except for the "proving it wrong" part: If I were a devout, intelligent Christian/Muslim fundamentalist, I would keep reading the bible/koran over and over and over again until I'd have formed a self-consistent religious worldview that guides me towards tolerance and good behaviour instead of abject lunacy and mass murder.

"Take up and read" is the word, not "shut up and obey."

EDIT:

Here's something I just wrote for a Yahoo Answers question challenging people to disprove the Christian god.

There's nothing quite as boring as arguments for/against God's existence.

[Arx]

Especially ones that have been presented a million times before and rejected by a noticeable proportion of the vocal Christians in the thread.

[Rose]

I have a question:

How many people here arguing for Christianity are believers, and how many are playing Devils advocate?

[Descan]

What, because someone killed a guy on purpose once they've inexplicably become unable to hold reasonable positions in society without doing so again, even when there are demonstrable changes in their behavior and values as demonstrated by religion or faith? Or is it just that you find the prospect too risky? (I may be misinterpreting you heavily; I apologize, I feel mentally exhausted after the doublethink)

Mostly his point was that using their religion or faith, as in just the sheer existence of them having it OR coming to it while in prison, AS a demonstration of change in future behavior was... 'risky.' I'd say idiotic or batshit myself, but let's just go with risky.