The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

So point 1 is irrelevant to the you? Well, it was very relevant to the argument I was making. Sorry about it not being relevant to your misinterpretation of what I wrote! 

And you disagree with 2, that "theism, and other forms of supernatural beliefs, does not thrive in enlightened societies" and that "if you happen to be very knowledgeable about the world, then it is less likely you are very religious"? I think this is rather well substantiated through empirical data. There is a strong inverse correlation between religiosity and things like average education level, GDP, number of peer-reviewed publication produced per capita, etc. Why do you disagree with this? 

And you don't agree with 5, that christianity was more of a social reform than an intellectual reform. Okay, care to elaborate?

What points are based on erroneous assumptions?

It is pointless elaborating on anything as you will just reply, ''straw man. I didn't say that. You have just wasted your time''. All ''Soul arguments'' proceed in a similar manner whether it be Guns N' Roses or Christianity that is the ''agenda of the day'', a prolix essay as click bait subsequently ripped to shreds by the correspondent who has naively accepted the challenge - historic and chronological gaffes (''iron age religions'') pointed out, general ignorance on theology/ritual demonstrated, quotations quoted out of context and textual misunderstanding all demonstrated amply, etc etc. - only to be followed by a second terser post that acts like you have just typed-up something picked up from the floor completely randomly, a Mills & Boon say? Soul's original post will be again reiterated whilst pointing out your general idiocy and expended time, this time in hyphenated point format and with a heightened degree of arrogance replicating all that has been hitherto refuted and the cycle continues...

As the saying goes here, ''like talking to a bucket of shite''.

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is pointless elaborating on anything as you will just reply, ''straw man. I didn't say that.

Well...when you are unable to actually argue what I say, and instead argue what you believe I say (as other here have pointed out, too), then, inevitably, that's the response you will be getting 

You said you disagreed with my second point, which was that theisms, like other beliefs in the supernatural, does not thrive in enlightened societies, and that knowledgeable people tend to be less religious than ignorant people. These are very concise statements that should be easy to discuss, with lots of empirical studies to support, well, both positions actually. But were you able to do that? No. Instead it seemed you got the half-baked idea that since christianity spread into the Roman Empire, that would somehow disprove my statement

[DieselDaisy]

I should also point out that you conveniently overlook large chunks of conversation in your decision that it is a ''straw man'', only to reiterate the very same argument that has been refuted further down the post! It is a curious way to converse but annoyingly circular: ''(A) I think x''. (B defeats x with y). ''(A) y is a straw man. I think x, and can you tell me why x is wrong?''. And here is this very process in action,

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

You said you disagreed with my second point, which was that theisms, like other beliefs in the supernatural, does not thrive in enlightened societies, and that knowledgeable people tend to be less religious than ignorant people. These are very concise statements that should be easy to discuss, with lots of empirical studies to support, well, both positions actually. But were you able to do that? No. Instead it seemed you got the half-baked idea that since christianity spread into the Roman Empire, that would somehow disprove my statement

If you want the reply to this, look above your head!

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If you want the reply to this, look above your head!

Where?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Where?

Up above your head? There? Right there? See it? Just there?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Up above your head? There? Right there? See it? Just there?

Ah, this is not getting us anywhere 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Ah, this is not getting us anywhere 

I repeat, talking to you is like talking to a bucket of shite. It'll get you nowhere fast.

[soon]

16 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

This is partially true, but there was also a major labor/populist movement in the US which started in the 19th century and culminated in the first half of the 20th century. This movement was the direct cause of labor reform (in the US at least), not religious reasons. I'm not familiar with how other countries' labor conditions progressed though, so if you were referring to elsewhere, I can't comment on that.

 

Im nt sure what you mean by partially true? You just agreed with me by restating my point in different words. I listed marxist, anarchist, christian and jews as those populating and leading labour movement. Then you just said labour movement - but that labour movement was those people. You should check out the history of the 8 hour day, the Hay Market Massacre, all that stuff.

[Sosso]

"The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/04/19.htm

[Sosso]

 

 

 

[OmarBradley]

11 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

@OmarBradley,

You entirely missed my point. My point was... most if not all of those that celebrate Christmas probably have some ties to Christianity historically (not because that's what society does, but rather their own families). You are not going to see a lot of Jewish and Muslim families celebrating Christmas, yet atheist and agnostics are perfectly happy to join in the celebration. Why? Because somewhere in their family line, they were more than likely Christian at some point. 

While I DO feel it is everyone's right to celebrate Christmas, I'm just simply posing the question why do you feel the need to celebrate birth of Christ if you are atheists? Because its secular? Or because its tradition? Dont you see the problem of cherry picking what you like and dont like from Christianity? So belief in Christ, that's nonsense? But celebrating his birth? You are all for that? Where is the logic in that? If you are truly strong in your convictions, then you should stand on them ALL the time, including during the Christmas season. Surely you are above silly things like "because its secular or tradition" at this point I would wager. 

So as you gather around your tree on December 25th, and open presents, just remember YOU are still participating in a Christian holiday. It doesnt matter how much secular society has tried to steal it, all of its history is traced back to Christianity (as I've pointed out in this very thread). So just keep that in mind, that everything you dislike or even hate about Christianity or religion as a whole, you are a willing participant on December 25th. Dont you see irony there???

As for my discussion on Theology, for one that's just my opinion, but it's a field of study I've spent more time on than you have I'd wager. So maybe you should actually give it a go before you get all twisted about it. My point in bringing it up was because Soul was saying "theists are stupid" more or less. I was pointing out that THEOLOGY is one of the most advanced fields of thought one can study. (Notice I said ONE of).

You claim atheists and agnostics celebrate Christmas "because somewhere in their family line they were more than likely Christian at some point." That's not really verifiable and it actually reinforces my comment on society's view of Christmas as a cultural event. "Not because that's what society does, but rather their own families" - society is comprised of families. If your family did something for 100 years in a row, that also 5 million other families in the same country do, that is a societal event. And I do see Jews celebrate Christmas actually - more often than I see atheists do tbh. But that's anecdotal. And personally, I do not celebrate any religious holidays.

Atheists and agnostics "join in the celebration" because that's what people do every December 24th/25th in America, they celebrate. This is not missing your point, this is debating it. Again, atheists and agnostics don't see their celebration of Christmas as a celebration of Christ - you see it that way. They don't "feel the need to celebrate the birth of Christ." They feel the need to have a party with food and a decorated tree and maybe presents because that's what people expect every Christmas.

"Don't you see the problem of cherry picking what you like and don't like from Christianity?" Glad you mentioned this one. But again,  atheists and agnostics don't care about the religious reasons for Christmas - they want to party with their friends/families. Back to your quote, I could list scores of verses from the Old and New Testament about slavery, women's rights (or lack thereof), physics/science, and other topics that are conveniently not adhered to or discussed by modern Christians/Catholics. It's almost as if time progressed and people realized some of the stuff in the book was either inaccurate or batshit crazy <- insert SM's claim about knowledge here.

I don't think SM has ever claimed theists are stupid. He has claimed they suffer delusions and are misguided, but he never said they weren't intelligent. What is your criteria for something being "one of the most advanced fields of thought one can study?" I understand these are your opinions, but being an opinion does not make something immune from critique, especially when it's backed up by nothing of substance. I never degraded the quality of wisdom or intellect that theologians may possess, you degraded those aspects of other disciplines while attempting to propagate theology as a 'holier than thou' (pun intended ) discipline.

8 hours ago, soon said:

Im nt sure what you mean by partially true? You just agreed with me by restating my point in different words. I listed marxist, anarchist, christian and jews as those populating and leading labour movement. Then you just said labour movement - but that labour movement was those people. You should check out the history of the 8 hour day, the Hay Market Massacre, all that stuff.

I'm aware of the history. Sure, Jews and Christians worked with Marxists and anarchists and populists and anyone else who took part in the labor movement. Religious reasons alone did not propel the labor movement. The labor movement was more complicated than 'people wanting to get home for the Sabbath' or 'have a day off for Christmas.' The topic of this thread is religion so I do think your comment is appropriate, but I want to make sure we don't reduce labor history to being completely religiously instigated. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by OmarBradley

[soon]

7 minutes ago, OmarBradley said:

I'm aware of the history. Sure, Jews and Christians worked with Marxists and anarchists and populists and anyone else who took part in the labor movement. Religious reasons alone did not propel the labor movement. The labor movement was more complicated than 'people wanting to get home for the Sabbath' or 'have a day off for Christmas.' The topic of this thread is religion so I do think your comment is inappropriate, but I want to make sure we don't reduce labor history to being completely religiously instigated. 

Hahah, clearly I never 'reduced labour history to religion.' What you are saying is absurd and not in any way based on anything I posted!

 

[OmarBradley]

Just now, soon said:

Hahah, clearly I never 'reduced labour history to religion.' What you are saying is absurd and not in any way based on anything I posted!

 

*do think your comment is appropriate

That was a typo, did not mean "inappropriate."

I didn't say you reduced the history, I said I wanted to avoid reducing the history. I didn't want people to read your post and assume those two reasons were the impetus behind the labor movement.

[soon]

1 minute ago, OmarBradley said:

I didn't say you reduced the history, I said I wanted to avoid reducing the history. I didn't want people to read your post and assume those two reasons were the impetus behind the labor movement.

No one would think that based on my post.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by soon

[arnold layne]

lol

Didn't a Pope literally just come up with Christmas anyway because, realistically, nobody has an accurate date of Jesus' birth anyway?

[soon]

 

[SoulMonster]

"God is good." You hear that from (many) christians. In their psalms, preaching, prayers, and just as a statement. Are they serious? I mean, my youngest daughter was playing her violin at a hospital recently, and I was sitting in the gallery watching as a bunch of patients came to listen. Young kids, kindergarten and up, all bald and attached to IVs. Some were helped to their places. And I couldn't watch them of fear of starting to cry. I was in a sentimental mood that day and all I could do was a quick smile in their direction before I had to look elsewhere. Yeah, "god is great." Are christians so blind? No, I think when they say that it is more of a hope. A prayer. That when they get to heaven it will all make sense and, yes, he is good. It was all okay and all the time. A fervent hope. If you just say it enough times it will become true. And I am thinking, phew, glad I am not a christian because I don't want to get closer to that obviously insane psychopath.

And on the topic of christians, I just read that the third in command, or something, of the catholic church, their treasurer, I believe, is charged with two accounts of molestation of kids. I think he is currently heading the Australian catholic church. It goes all the way to the top. Institutionalized pedophilia. And, besides feeling sorry for the victims and their families, I feel sorry for all the good, decent catholics around the world who have to witness the truth of their organization being revealed. An organization that in itself should be holy, can be so degenerate. 

[Len Cnut]

Quote

my youngest daughter was playing her violin at a hospital recently, and I was sitting in the gallery watching as a bunch of patients came to listen. Young kids, kindergarten and up, all bald and attached to IVs. Some were helped to their places. And I couldn't watch them of fear of starting to cry.

Why?

[soon]

When I see sick and suffering kids my only instinct is to try and make their day better. Obviously sick kids pick up on someones inability to even look at them and that makes them feel even worse. 

 

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Why?

Because terminally ill kids in pain makes me sad. 

[Len Cnut]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Because terminally ill kids in pain makes me sad. 

Why?

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Why?

Empathy. 

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Empathy. 

How do you reconcile yourself with it?  The sad feeling I mean, not the empathy.

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

How do you reconcile yourself with it?  The sad feeling I mean, not the empathy.

It doesn't need reconciling. It passes.

You know, being affected by other's pain is normal. On the other side, this empathy also allows you to take part in other's joy. So that kind of makes up for the inconvenience of it . Psychologists calls it a defining human trait. It is so strong in normal humans that it even allows us to care for animals. But more importantly, it is such a recognizably human trait that without it, normal relations becomes difficult, you basically become a psychopath. 

[Len Cnut]

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It doesn't need reconciling. It passes.

You know, being affected by other's pain is normal. On the other side, this empathy also allows you to take part in other's joy. So that kind of makes up for the inconvenience of it . Psychologists calls it a defining human trait. It is so strong in normal humans that it even allows us to care for animals. But more importantly, it is such a recognizably human trait that without it, normal relations becomes difficult, you basically become a psychopath. 

What do you think is behind empathy?  Like what fuels it?  Not empathy in general but rather that specific form of empathy, looking at those kids and feeling the way you did?

Edited December 15, 2018 by Len Cnut