Jump to content

The Religion/Spirituality Thread


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course she won't let you spill your seed. 

You're right, I am not evil. But I do represent a wave of people who reject theism for various reasons, who find the BELIEF in gods irrational, mindless and damaging. And we are growing in numbers. Already there are more atheists than theists in Norway, a country who repeatedly score at the top of all lists of welfare and happiness. I expect the same development in USA. With luck we will see this happen across the globe, and belief in gods, just like belief in any other supernatural creatures like unicorns, ghosts and Santa Clause, will die out. And humanity will be better off for it. 

This is why you will fail. That is the CORE problem with Atheism. You mock us for believing in a God, yet you BELIEVE the world will be better without it. Your "faith" doesn't have a belief, so by definition trying to assert ANY future claim is folly. You have no evidence to back up that claim. You only have... oh that's right, your BELIEF. See the irony there???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

This is why you will fail. That is the CORE problem with Atheism. You mock us for believing in a God, yet you BELIEVE the world will be better without it. Your "faith" doesn't have a belief, so by definition trying to assert ANY future claim is folly. You have no evidence to back up that claim. You only have... oh that's right, your BELIEF. See the irony there???

You don't need evidence to disbelieve something. Disbelief is simply the result of a lack of evidence for the claim being made.

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dazey said:

You don't need evidence to disbelieve something. Disbelief is simply the result of a lack of evidence for the claim being made.

I don't disagree with you, in this reguard. But that's deflecting. SoulMonster made a claim, to which I responded to his claim. At that point the burden of proof is on HIM to support his claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not one for Christian pop music.  But the praise pop music outta Rwanda/Burundi/Congo just wrecks me.  No idea what they are saying.  But the grace, trust, forgiveness and love displayed is beyond me.  The horrors they've endured.  I once held a Congolese baby named Forgiveness.  His family - only days before having been finally reunited here - sat with us attending to the tears I chocked back with smiles and knowing eyes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Grahams dead...Mick Jagger lives on

We’ll call that 1-0 for Satan shall we? :lol:

2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I would've felt so affronted I'd have grabbed the birdhouse and started dry-humping it and talking in tongues and throwing myself around the place pretending his woodwork was false idols casting evil over the entire wedding.

 

Oi, Rolling Stones if you dont mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Blackstar said:

RE: The crown of thorns.

The fact alone that it's not mentioned in sources earlier than the 5th century makes its authenticity highly doubtful imo (probably those monks and pilgrims really believed it was genuine). Yes, the mentions of it are early compared to those about other relics, but it's still a long time from the event it's related to.

It's unknown when the crown was transferred to Constantinople, and even if it was the same as the one mentioned in the early sources. It was there in the 11th century along with many other relics, like supposed fragments of the cross, Jesus' garments, the sponge, the lance, nails, the so called Mandylion (something similar to the shroud of Turin) etc. There are stories about before the 11th century- I don't know how accurate they are and the sources they originate from - that Eastern Roman/Byzantine emperors gave thorns from that crown as presents to various leaders and churches, and they, in turn, gave some to others, so there are thorns which are claimed to be from the "original" crown in various locations all over Europe. The veneration of relics was very common in Byzantium, at least from the 6th-7th century.

All of those relics, along with many valuable artifacts, were taken from Constantinople after it was conquered by the Crusaders in 1204 and the Byzantine empire was replaced by "Latin Empire of Constantinople" - an empire only in name, as it was very weak politically (in its most part consisted of autonomous feudal states) and economically. The last emperor of the Latin Empire sold the crown and other relics to Louis IX of France through Venice; the Venetians took the crown as security for a loan to Baldwin and subsequently Louis bought it from them.

 

That is fair enough but you will find that you have far greater problems with relics other than the crown if you find a 409 AD attestation dubiously late! Most relics only surface when we are well and truly into the Middle Ages and have multiple claimants on their veracity.

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I would've felt so affronted I'd have grabbed the birdhouse and started dry-humping it and talking in tongues and throwing myself around the place pretending his woodwork was false idols casting evil over the entire wedding.

 

Fast destroy nuptials with a shite cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

That is fair enough but you will find that you have far greater problems with relics other than the crown if you find a 409 AD attestation dubiously late! Most relics only surface when we are well and truly into the Middle Ages and have multiple claimants on their veracity.

Fast destroy nuptials with a shite cover.

Tried listening to it again to check if time has been kind to it, got 50 secs in, couldn’t hack it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I don't disagree with you, in this reguard. But that's deflecting. SoulMonster made a claim, to which I responded to his claim. At that point the burden of proof is on HIM to support his claim.

The claim that we'd be better off without theism? Yes, that is something I believe and it is based on the realization that in a world where people didn't believe in gods we would not suffer from all the negative effects of theism (religious wars, institutionalised belief in nonsense, focus away from what is real, etc.) while almost all the positive effects of theism (comfort, community, sense of purpose, etc.) could be transplanted to other institutions and less irrational philosophies. We know this because modern, highly secular societies (like Norway) doesn't seem to suffer any ill-effects, rather the contrary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see any correlation between atheism and the success of a country. North Korea is an atheistic state and is one of the world's most unsuccessful states, under a military mad dictatorship and with an impoverished and subservient population. Italy and Spain are successful first-world states in which one can still see a reverence for Roman Catholicism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I fail to see any correlation between atheism and the success of a country. North Korea is an atheistic state and is one of the world's most unsuccessful states, under a military mad dictatorship and with an impoverished and subservient population. Italy and Spain are successful first-world states in which one can still see a reverence for Roman Catholicism. 

My argument was not that every secular state automatically becomes great :lol: I merely demonstrated that highly secular societies can lead lists on prosperity and quality of life,indicating that we really don't need theism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

My argument was not that every secular state automatically becomes great :lol: I merely demonstrated that highly secular societies can lead lists on prosperity and quality of life,indicating that we really don't need theism. 

I still fail to see the connection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is simply no correlation between the success of a state, and that state’s level of atheism. That argument is full of contradictions. Communist states have made atheism their state ideology, and persecuted religion, yet communist states are the very definition of failed states, bereft of democracy, freedom, human rights and welfare. Some of Europe’s most successful states are religious. Only 12.4% of Italians in a 2012 poll opted for agnosticism, atheism or indifference and Italy leads the way in fashion, cuisine, tourism, cinema and general ‘’dolce vita’’ - and would fulfil most people’s criteria of a happy and successful state. Norway hardly even fulfils the criteria as being the world's ‘’biggest exponent of atheism‘’, being that it has a state religion (Church of Norway) and 4,097,562 Christians!

Back to the drawing board with this one I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There is simply no correlation between the success of a state, and that state’s level of atheism. That argument is full of contradictions. 

It is also not an argument I have made :lol:

My point, and you might want to pay attention now, is that highly secular societies can be leading in terms of quality of life and prosperity, and hence we don't need theism. I am not saying that secularism guarantees a great country, a secular country can be terrible, of course, just that it can work really, really well. 

As for Norway, only 48 % of those registered in the Church of Norway consider themselves christian, and one third of them say they are atheists :lol: Recent polls say that about 50 % of Norwegians don't consider themselves as believers. 

If someone is interested in actual studies on quality of life, and not the subjective musings of DieselDaisy, then this recent article should be interesting: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/how-s-life-where-you-are/

As can be seen, Norway and other highly secular countries perform really well. I am not arguing a causality, just that this proves we can create great societies without theism. 

 

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, soon said:

But where does this assumption that theisms purpose is the success of the state come from?

No one has said that the purpose of a belief in gods is to create successful states, but it is a common argument to claim that if people stop believing in gods, chaos will ensue, that without faith we revert to primal beasts devoid of virtues, that without god we can't be happy, that without belief our world would be a cruel, cold place. So when I briefly argued for why I believe theism is bad for mankind, I also had to point out this is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No one has said that the purpose of a belief in gods is to create successful states, but it is a common argument to claim that if people stop believing in gods, chaos will ensue, that without faith we revert to primal beasts devoid of virtues, that without god we can't be happy, that without belief our world would be a cruel, cold place. So when I briefly argued for why I believe theism is bad for mankind, I also had to point out this is not the case.

Oh, I see.  I dont really hold any of those pros or cons as valuable or true.  So I guess theres not much for me to say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To follow up on my latest point, the graph below is from the aforementioned study. 

jWjvhbh-fqDCqRfnYxYRJReyk_QKgWadrkbAGqDa

The y-axis shows quality of life. Norway tops with a score close to 10, followed by Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands and Canada (all between 7 and 9). Italy has a score between 3 and 4. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

To follow up on my latest point, the graph below is from the aforementioned study. 

jWjvhbh-fqDCqRfnYxYRJReyk_QKgWadrkbAGqDa

The y-axis shows quality of life. Norway tops with a score close to 10, followed by Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands and Canada (all between 7 and 9). Italy has a score between 3 and 4. 

 

You admitted that there are Christians in Norway, so the quality of life you keep talking about CANNOT be attributed to Atheism. If Norway was 100% Atheist, than I could see your point... But not as it is. 

Which again you are just giving YOUR beliefs, which my original premise stands. Atheists can state the things they believe to be true, yet mock Christians for their beliefs. Honestly your entire argument doesn't hold water due to these inconsistencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You admitted that there are Christians in Norway, so the quality of life you keep talking about CANNOT be attributed to Atheism. 

I have never claimed that the quality of life in Norway is caused by its large population of atheists, in fact I made an explicit point of saying I am not arguing causality. 

My point is to demonstrate that people can enjoy great quality of life also in highly secular societies.  Why is this point so hard to grasp? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never claimed that the quality of life in Norway is caused by its large population of atheists, in fact I made an explicit point of saying I am not arguing causality. 

My point is to demonstrate that people can enjoy great quality of life also in highly secular societies.  Why is this point so hard to grasp? :lol:

Because it's an apples and oranges comparison. You are drawing connections to suit your own points. The quality of life in Norway is likely due to MANY factors, yet you are attributing them to one. Or at very least assuming that Atheism is the MAIN factor, which again you have no evidence to support that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Atheists can state the things they believe to be true, yet mock Christians for their beliefs. 

My belief that humanity would be better off without theism is based on a cost-benefit analysis taking into account the problems with theisms and its various benefits. It is a rational approach. You might not agree with my conclusion, and I will be the first to point out it is a hard one, yet it is principally different from a belief in supernatural creatures. 

4 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Because it's an apples and oranges comparison. You are drawing connections to suit your own points. The quality of life in Norway is likely due to MANY factors, yet you are attributing them to one. Or at very least assuming that Atheism is the MAIN factor, which again you have no evidence to support that claim.

Jesus. Again, I AM NOT ATTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO ATHEISM. I don't care WHY Norway has a high quality of life that is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant IS that it HAS a high quality of life, despite being highly secularised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...