11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

[OneHandNow]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

And Christians also do various other things because their faith promotes it.

Such as indoctrination of children.

[Aldentron]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

Look, my problem is that not ONCE has ANYBODY in this thread tried to acknowledge the good things that religion provides. It would appear that mans0n and ChesterDalton are the only religious people in this thread, and even they have so far failed to acknowledge this.
Failure to look at both sides of a coin is quite ignorant. If you're as eloquent and intelligent as the members of this forum would lead me to believe, Reincarnate, you should very well know that.

[rushyrulz]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

My point is that the reason Christians do volunteer work is because their faith promotes it.

I'm an atheist.
I'm an Eagle Scout.
I've done more volunteer work than you can shake a stick at.
I am not religious.

As for charity, my point is not that Christians do the majority of volunteer work.

I'd like to see the statistics on this.

[MrGiggles]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

also a note on Dawkins to MrGiggles:

You do realize that it doesn't matter how "nice" you are -- people like mans0n aren't likely to change their views, right? You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Once someone has taken that kind of mindset, it's almost a lost cause unless they get the intellectual curiosity on their own merit.

Just because the chances of successfully convincing someone to question their beliefs are slim doesn't mean you shouldn't make the minimal effort. The person on the other side of the debate won't take you seriously unless you take him/her seriously. If you attack people's beliefs aggressively the way you are apt to do, they'll get defensive and retreat back into a "DONT LISTEN TO THE DEVIL" mentality. Grats, they're now probably less likely to make a committed intellectual effort in the future. Approaching them with a modicum of respect and civility makes you much more likely to get people to at least consider thinking about what you say.

You say you tend to follow NDT's methods and reasoning rather than Dawkins, and NDT is A+ awesomesauce, but look at Aldentron's list of quotes and tell me you honestly don't think you're being too abrasive towards people who honestly believe they're making the world a better place through practicing their beliefs.

edit: plus, it's just straight up not nice to refer to someone as retarded, even if they are. This ain't the gBin yet.
ps you're retarded ;o

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

candians are far better than americans they do not cause trouble and mind their own business

[Secks69]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

I'd like to see the statistics on this.

He's saying that not necessarily Christians do more volunteer work than others do, he's just saying that Christians do volunteer work because their faith promotes it. He's not trying to say "CHRISTIANS ARE BETTER LOL", he's just saying that there are good things to religion but nobody in this thread has acknowledged that.

[BigBoss37]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

what doesnt the bible ban

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

they don't ban burkas but the french do, also shaving armpits

[Reincarnate]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

Yes, Aldentron, what are you accomplishing by quoting me? There's nothing wrong with holding the opinion that religion is retarded. It's no more or less retarded than believing in Leprechauns. Would you call someone sane who believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you respect that belief if their faith said it was OK to be hostile against those that did not believe?

And nobody says Christianity hasn't been a promoter for good in some cases. The point is that you don't need faith to do that. We don't get our morality from the Bible. We do good unto others because of secular, societal optima. The reason why few people care to really talk about the upsides is because the upsides are arguably negligible when compared to the downsides. It's like trying to say "But there are benefits to using asbestos!" Fine, but do we really need to settle for that?

[ScarletSky]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

what doesnt the bible ban

I think molesting children is fine. :3

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

your a petafile

[~kitty~]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

That's absolutely wrong lmfao thought you were smarter than that.

There's a very serious problem with telling people that it's OK to blindly justify faith. As an example you've got ~kitty~ in this very thread saying crap like

Whoa whoa whoa there, Reincarnate. You misunderstood what I meant. I thought about what I said, and I realized the government interferes with what I mentioned, so it's an issue of controlling the people by the state rather than Religion, which used to control the people of the past and keep everyone from killing each other. My issues are slightly more political and somewhat more personal on some levels. I didn't mean it the way you think. I'm sorry if I ever gave you the impression I was excusing Religion for all the conflicts it has caused in the past, present, and will in the future.

EDIT: the only reason I posted everything of what I said was to balance the issue and my inner conflict with Religion (actually more or less a thing of a creator and what it could mean and what it does mean for others) which I resolved as being agnostic, pretty much. However, I'm the type of agnostic which I would prefer to believe one exists, because I don't like the world I see, and a good way out of it is to believe in one. Like I mentioned before, I haven't been very well exposed to the world, but there are lots of things that cause me emotional distress if they remain the way they are. I think Religion could help fix that issue, and I know that there's going to be a lot of the whole existential arguments and stuff in response, but you have to realize not everyone "exists" the same way. Respect it, please. I understand why you feel the way you do, and you probably don't have the same sense of morals I do... too many distractions to complete this, but I agree with you Reincarnate on the vast majority of what you said. However, there are some things I would like to agree to disagree with you on as well.

[ScarletSky]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

your a petafile

Not saying I've ever done it.
But the catholics have been doing it for years.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

peatfiles will be detained

[Reincarnate]

Re: 11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

Just because the chances of successfully convincing someone to question their beliefs are slim doesn't mean you shouldn't make the minimal effort. The person on the other side of the debate won't take you seriously unless you take him/her seriously. If you attack people's beliefs aggressively the way you are apt to do, they'll get defensive and retreat back into a "DONT LISTEN TO THE DEVIL" mentality. Grats, they're now probably less likely to make a committed intellectual effort in the future. Approaching them with a modicum of respect and civility makes you much more likely to get people to at least consider thinking about what you say.

You say you tend to follow NDT's methods and reasoning rather than Dawkins, and NDT is A+ awesomesauce, but look at Aldentron's list of quotes and tell me you honestly don't think you're being too abrasive towards people who honestly believe they're making the world a better place through practicing their beliefs.

edit: plus, it's just straight up not nice to refer to someone as retarded, even if they are. This ain't the gBin yet.
ps you're retarded ;o

Why am I obligated to make an effort to convince/convert someone? That's damn near impossible to do.

As for people taking things seriously, but there's no way to have a serious debate with someone who is literally operating outside of logic. It's why Dawkins doesn't debate Creationists anymore. You give them credence by agreeing to debate in the first place, and, as the famous quote says, it's like playing Chess with a pigeon who shits on the board, knocks over all the pieces, and then flocks home to claim victory. What if a biologist agreed to get into a discussion with an advocate of the Stork Theory? Or a geologist versus a Flat-Earther? Are we really supposed to take crackpot claims seriously, as you're implying? These are not beliefs we should respect, validate, or take seriously -- especially when they cause harm.

There's a certain point where you have to put your foot down. To take the opposing side "seriously" is literally appealing to nonsense -- it's intentionally giving weight to demonstrably false claims and outright crazy logical absurdities. Even by giving it respect when debating otherwise harmless theists, you propagate a meme that faith is OK. That concept is the very core of the greatest weapon of destructive religious backing.

As for calling people retarded -- I completely agree, don't get me wrong. But this is the Internet which is srs bsns rite.