When was the last time you had a civilized political/religious discussion?

[MrSnugglesworth]

I had a civilized conversation about the difference between Grape Drink and Grape Juice.


The difference?


There isn't one, my friend is just retarded.

 

[Ranor Benethran]

I've NEH-HEH-HEVER had a debate bout anything where the other party was not trying to convert me to some twisted ritual that alows me to get presents once a year as long as i give up every sunday morning from here on in (in my eyes not worth it). All I ask is that the other party Listens to my veiws on the topic. Then before I say ANYTHING! At all! they say "Ok. But..." and that realy TICKS ME OFF! They belive they've already won WTF is with THAT!?! THERE"S NOTHING TO WIN! Why does everything have to be black and white? Grey does exsist you know.

 

[Azraellod]

Two days ago I think.

My mum's a Christian, and my dad's an atheist. So they aren't really that uncommon in my house.

 

[Ranor Benethran]

I had a civilized conversation about the difference between Grape Drink and Grape Juice.


The difference?


There isn't one, my friend is just retarded.

grape drink could be grape flavored cordial.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I had a civilized conversation about the difference between Grape Drink and Grape Juice.


The difference?


There isn't one, my friend is just retarded.

grape drink could be grape flavored cordial.

Well the thing is is that "Grape Drink" is racists on my part. It is what black people call anything that has to do with grape, and its because they "Love" Grape Soda so much. So they call it "Grape Drink"


So no. He is just really stupid and I'm just a tad racist.

 

[Ranor Benethran]

Religion and science have nothing to do with each other. If you are looking for a way to explain worldly phenomena and make useful predictions then you turn to science. If you are looking for spiritual and/or moral direction then science has nothing to say about that. They are two completely different things.

Well, the problem is religions quite often make claims about the reality and the nature of it. In fact, I would argue even the supernatural claims are about the reality. If gods exist, shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?

Religions never make claims, people do. Where those claims are scientific claims they are subject to scientific study. Where they are belief systems they are not. Nobody believes in evolution. There may be considerably disagreement and doubt of the mechanism and methods of evolution but the basic premise (that life changes over time to adapt to changes in the environment) is not a matter of belief but of fact.

God, deities, the nature of the soul, the nature of natures soul, the words of Gautama Buddha, the Wiccan Rede, concepts of morality, ethics, right and wrong, justice, these things are not scientific in nature. They are based on belief. There is absolutely no basis for scientific study there because these are issues outside of the physical universe, thus the scientific method does not apply.

well guess what. I BELIVE that everyone should have a fair go, I BELIVE that there IS right AND WRONG (In most cases.) but, I find it very hard to belive that a being created space the universe and everything to his/her design and THEN had the ego to create US in his/her image. But if we find proof that this is how it happened then what created this being that christians call GOD? (yes it is christianity thats trying so har to convert me.)Who or what created him/her?

I'm not saing any religion is wrong I'm just on the fence leaning to dis-beleif (...ok. im leaning against the fence on the athiest side im still quite open minded to an extent.) but if some one proves to me (with evedence) of a god who created all WITHOUT using the bible (or any other human created text) i will be whatever religeon proved it for im my eyes they seek the TRUTH as do I. so go forth little ones! SEEK TRUTH! as i continue my study of EVOLUTION. (don't give me any of that CREATIONISM crap we all know that ideas a dud)

 

[Ranor Benethran]

I had a civilized conversation about the difference between Grape Drink and Grape Juice.


The difference?


There isn't one, my friend is just retarded.

grape drink could be grape flavored cordial.

Well the thing is is that "Grape Drink" is racists on my part. It is what black people call anything that has to do with grape, and its because they "Love" Grape Soda so much. So they call it "Grape Drink"


So no. He is just really stupid and I'm just a tad racist.

wow. I'm so NOT RACIST i never knew that *THUMBS UP!*
and now I know. AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! -G.I. JOE!-

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I had a civilized conversation about the difference between Grape Drink and Grape Juice.


The difference?


There isn't one, my friend is just retarded.

grape drink could be grape flavored cordial.

Well the thing is is that "Grape Drink" is racists on my part. It is what black people call anything that has to do with grape, and its because they "Love" Grape Soda so much. So they call it "Grape Drink"


So no. He is just really stupid and I'm just a tad racist.

wow. I'm so NOT RACIST i never knew that *TUMBS UP!*

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...



Damn you internet, blocking my Sarcasto-Vision!

 

[Ranor Benethran]

I had a civilized conversation about the difference between Grape Drink and Grape Juice.


The difference?


There isn't one, my friend is just retarded.

grape drink could be grape flavored cordial.

Well the thing is is that "Grape Drink" is racists on my part. It is what black people call anything that has to do with grape, and its because they "Love" Grape Soda so much. So they call it "Grape Drink"


So no. He is just really stupid and I'm just a tad racist.

wow. I'm so NOT RACIST i never knew that *TUMBS UP!*

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...



Damn you internet, blocking my Sarcasto-Vision!

I'm just being silly don't worry.

 

[Ranor Benethran]

Religion and science have nothing to do with each other. If you are looking for a way to explain worldly phenomena and make useful predictions then you turn to science. If you are looking for spiritual and/or moral direction then science has nothing to say about that. They are two completely different things.

Well, the problem is religions quite often make claims about the reality and the nature of it. In fact, I would argue even the supernatural claims are about the reality. If gods exist, shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?

Religions never make claims, people do. Where those claims are scientific claims they are subject to scientific study. Where they are belief systems they are not. Nobody believes in evolution. There may be considerably disagreement and doubt of the mechanism and methods of evolution but the basic premise (that life changes over time to adapt to changes in the environment) is not a matter of belief but of fact.

God, deities, the nature of the soul, the nature of natures soul, the words of Gautama Buddha, the Wiccan Rede, concepts of morality, ethics, right and wrong, justice, these things are not scientific in nature. They are based on belief. There is absolutely no basis for scientific study there because these are issues outside of the physical universe, thus the scientific method does not apply.

well guess what. I BELIVE that everyone should have a fair go, I BELIVE that there IS right AND WRONG (In most cases.) but, I find it very hard to belive that a being created space the universe and everything to his/her design and THEN had the ego to create US in his/her image. But if we find proof that this is how it happened then what created this being that christians call GOD? (yes it is christianity thats trying so har to convert me.)Who or what created him/her?

I'm not saing any religion is wrong I'm just on the fence leaning to dis-beleif (...ok. im leaning against the fence on the athiest side im still quite open minded to an extent.) but if some one proves to me (with evedence) of a god who created all WITHOUT using the bible (or any other human created text) i will be whatever religeon proved it for im my eyes they seek the TRUTH as do I. so go forth little ones! SEEK TRUTH! as i continue my study of EVOLUTION. (don't give me any of that CREATIONISM crap we all know that ideas a dud)

I'm quite suprised that no ones reported me on this yet...or replied. 0_o

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Religion and science have nothing to do with each other. If you are looking for a way to explain worldly phenomena and make useful predictions then you turn to science. If you are looking for spiritual and/or moral direction then science has nothing to say about that. They are two completely different things.

Well, the problem is religions quite often make claims about the reality and the nature of it. In fact, I would argue even the supernatural claims are about the reality. If gods exist, shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?

Religions never make claims, people do. Where those claims are scientific claims they are subject to scientific study. Where they are belief systems they are not. Nobody believes in evolution. There may be considerably disagreement and doubt of the mechanism and methods of evolution but the basic premise (that life changes over time to adapt to changes in the environment) is not a matter of belief but of fact.

God, deities, the nature of the soul, the nature of natures soul, the words of Gautama Buddha, the Wiccan Rede, concepts of morality, ethics, right and wrong, justice, these things are not scientific in nature. They are based on belief. There is absolutely no basis for scientific study there because these are issues outside of the physical universe, thus the scientific method does not apply.

well guess what. I BELIVE that everyone should have a fair go, I BELIVE that there IS right AND WRONG (In most cases.) but, I find it very hard to belive that a being created space the universe and everything to his/her design and THEN had the ego to create US in his/her image. But if we find proof that this is how it happened then what created this being that christians call GOD? (yes it is christianity thats trying so har to convert me.)Who or what created him/her?

I'm not saing any religion is wrong I'm just on the fence leaning to dis-beleif (...ok. im leaning against the fence on the athiest side im still quite open minded to an extent.) but if some one proves to me (with evedence) of a god who created all WITHOUT using the bible (or any other human created text) i will be whatever religeon proved it for im my eyes they seek the TRUTH as do I. so go forth little ones! SEEK TRUTH! as i continue my study of EVOLUTION. (don't give me any of that CREATIONISM crap we all know that ideas a dud)

No no no, this post of yours is good stuff. Don't get me wrong I am not telling anyone to believe in god or such concepts at all (I certainly don't believe in any monotheistic deity myself), and I am not saying that because religion is, in essence, unprovable it needs to be taken at face value without intellectual inquiry. Far from it. All I am saying is that belief is very different to science and thus must be handled differently. Let me put it a completely different way...

Science is fact. It is totally objective. Whatever has happened in your life, whatever you had for breakfast, whatever your name is and where you come from, the science won't be any different.

Belief is faith. It is absolutely subjective. It is effected by everything in your life, all of your experiences, your up-bringing, your social circle, your job... all of these things will impact on things like your taste in music and clothing, what art you like, and your religion.

This is why people get upset when their religion is shit upon by others who believe differently. It is exactly the same as shitting on them personally. Some people have very good reasons to be atheistic, but others have equally good reasons to be religious. I would never seek to deride or dismiss the beliefs of others because I simply do not know the kind of lives they have lived and thus I am not qualified to judge them.

All I ask is that people refrain from attempting to shove their own beliefs down the throats of others, or treating others with bigotry based upon their beliefs.

 

[Lieju]

God, deities, the nature of the soul, the nature of natures soul, the words of Gautama Buddha, the Wiccan Rede, concepts of morality, ethics, right and wrong, justice, these things are not scientific in nature. They are based on belief. There is absolutely no basis for scientific study there because these are issues outside of the physical universe, thus the scientific method does not apply.

But surely souls or gods or other "supernatural" phenomena either must somehow manifest in the natural world, not exist, or exist outside of reality(in which case they do not matter).

 

[cuddly_tomato]

God, deities, the nature of the soul, the nature of natures soul, the words of Gautama Buddha, the Wiccan Rede, concepts of morality, ethics, right and wrong, justice, these things are not scientific in nature. They are based on belief. There is absolutely no basis for scientific study there because these are issues outside of the physical universe, thus the scientific method does not apply.

But surely souls or gods or other "supernatural" phenomena either must somehow manifest in the natural world, not exist, or exist outside of reality(in which case they do not matter).

Why would they? And even if they did, how would science explain it? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for the existence of deities, supernatural phenomena, etc. Just nothing that can be reproduced in a laboratory - and this is the problem.

There is also the question of justification for beliefs, specifically, do we actually need any?

When the Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Hood, took on the Kriegsmarine battleship, Bismark during World War 2, the battle lasted all of 5 minutes. The Bismark managed to hit the magazine compartment of the Hood, which exploded, sending the ship to the bottom of the sea in seconds. There were a total of 3 survivors from the Hood. When the boiler room exploded, a huge bubble of air escaped and lifted them to the surface - something of a miracle. An explainable miracle perhaps, but never-the-less a miracle for those survivors. Does it make me believe in god? Certainly not. If I was one of those riding that bubble upwards? It probably would have made me believe in something.

Similarly, when I look around at life in the gardens where I work, I see all the little insects going about their daily business, I see the trees waving around and dropping blossoms everywhere, I see the birds singing and the robins following me around, I just can't personally believe that this is all just a random chemical reaction from years ago that hasn't finished playing out yet.

So I suppose I am saying that science is shaped by what is observable and repeatable fact. Faith and belief are shaped on our own personal interpretations of our experiences and knowledge. As long as the person involved is capable of re-assessing their beliefs, and acknowledge that their beliefs are indeed beliefs and there is always room for doubt, then they are in no way unhealthy.

 

[Ranor Benethran]

Religion and science have nothing to do with each other. If you are looking for a way to explain worldly phenomena and make useful predictions then you turn to science. If you are looking for spiritual and/or moral direction then science has nothing to say about that. They are two completely different things.

Well, the problem is religions quite often make claims about the reality and the nature of it. In fact, I would argue even the supernatural claims are about the reality. If gods exist, shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?

Religions never make claims, people do. Where those claims are scientific claims they are subject to scientific study. Where they are belief systems they are not. Nobody believes in evolution. There may be considerably disagreement and doubt of the mechanism and methods of evolution but the basic premise (that life changes over time to adapt to changes in the environment) is not a matter of belief but of fact.

God, deities, the nature of the soul, the nature of natures soul, the words of Gautama Buddha, the Wiccan Rede, concepts of morality, ethics, right and wrong, justice, these things are not scientific in nature. They are based on belief. There is absolutely no basis for scientific study there because these are issues outside of the physical universe, thus the scientific method does not apply.

well guess what. I BELIVE that everyone should have a fair go, I BELIVE that there IS right AND WRONG (In most cases.) but, I find it very hard to belive that a being created space the universe and everything to his/her design and THEN had the ego to create US in his/her image. But if we find proof that this is how it happened then what created this being that christians call GOD? (yes it is christianity thats trying so har to convert me.)Who or what created him/her?

I'm not saing any religion is wrong I'm just on the fence leaning to dis-beleif (...ok. im leaning against the fence on the athiest side im still quite open minded to an extent.) but if some one proves to me (with evedence) of a god who created all WITHOUT using the bible (or any other human created text) i will be whatever religeon proved it for im my eyes they seek the TRUTH as do I. so go forth little ones! SEEK TRUTH! as i continue my study of EVOLUTION. (don't give me any of that CREATIONISM crap we all know that ideas a dud)

No no no, this post of yours is good stuff. Don't get me wrong I am not telling anyone to believe in god or such concepts at all (I certainly don't believe in any monotheistic deity myself), and I am not saying that because religion is, in essence, unprovable it needs to be taken at face value without intellectual inquiry. Far from it. All I am saying is that belief is very different to science and thus must be handled differently. Let me put it a completely different way...

Science is fact. It is totally objective. Whatever has happened in your life, whatever you had for breakfast, whatever your name is and where you come from, the science won't be any different.

Belief is faith. It is absolutely subjective. It is effected by everything in your life, all of your experiences, your up-bringing, your social circle, your job... all of these things will impact on things like your taste in music and clothing, what art you like, and your religion.

This is why people get upset when their religion is shit upon by others who believe differently. It is exactly the same as shitting on them personally. Some people have very good reasons to be atheistic, but others have equally good reasons to be religious. I would never seek to deride or dismiss the beliefs of others because I simply do not know the kind of lives they have lived and thus I am not qualified to judge them.

All I ask is that people refrain from attempting to shove their own beliefs down the throats of others, or treating others with bigotry based upon their beliefs.

I absolutely LOVE that last thing you said and also just yesterday I was talking to someone about religeon and they said "I feel sorry for you, you haven't opened your heart to our saviour." and then goes on about how he's seen the "promised land" now these are the people I realy dislike (Don't hate, just dislike.) the people who read the bible and took it ALL for FACT! the parting of the red sea the walking on water. (though it may have been a magic trick to comlpx for the simpltons of the past to realise that it's just a trick) although on second thought I might have to feel sorry for HIM! he might have died and lost some mental function. next thing you know he'll be off to england looking for platform 10&3/4 whist on his way to Hogwarts, or he might go start digging in africa looking for a portal to the arc! (I'd love to see that one.)

 

[Steelfists]

A few days ago, on this forum.

 

[Lieju]

Similarly, when I look around at life in the gardens where I work, I see all the little insects going about their daily business, I see the trees waving around and dropping blossoms everywhere, I see the birds singing and the robins following me around, I just can't personally believe that this is all just a random chemical reaction from years ago that hasn't finished playing out yet.

Well, I would agree it's in no way "random". But still, everything either exists or doesn't exist. If it exists, we should be able to study it. Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, but even so, we should be able to study the phenomena, even if we only had the testimonies. Why couldn't we study haunted houses or lakes with supposed mythical creatures living in them? If something manifests in the natural world, science can study it. If it doesn't manifest, it doesn't matter, and we can't know anything about it.

Also, I fail to see the meaning of your anecdote about the Kriegsmarine battleship. Stuff happened, so what? Surviving something against all the odds, would mean what, exactly? How is that any more miraculous than some other ship sinking and taking all of it's crew with it?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Similarly, when I look around at life in the gardens where I work, I see all the little insects going about their daily business, I see the trees waving around and dropping blossoms everywhere, I see the birds singing and the robins following me around, I just can't personally believe that this is all just a random chemical reaction from years ago that hasn't finished playing out yet.

Well, I would agree it's in no way "random". But still, everything either exists or doesn't exist. If it exists, we should be able to study it. Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, but even so, we should be able to study the phenomena, even if we only had the testimonies. Why couldn't we study haunted houses or lakes with supposed mythical creatures living in them? If something manifests in the natural world, science can study it. If it doesn't manifest, it doesn't matter, and we can't know anything about it.

Also, I fail to see the meaning of your anecdote about the Kriegsmarine battleship. Stuff happened, so what? Surviving something against all the odds, would mean what, exactly? How is that any more miraculous than some other ship sinking and taking all of it's crew with it?

The context of personal belief. Everyone doesn't have to believe the same thing you know. Science is not in the business of enforcing a uniform interpretation of everything ever.

Experience can and should alter belief, that is human.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Religion and science have nothing to do with each other. If you are looking for a way to explain worldly phenomena and make useful predictions then you turn to science. If you are looking for spiritual and/or moral direction then science has nothing to say about that. They are two completely different things.

We should put this somewhere more people would read it. Like burnt into the face of the moon.

 

[Heresy101]

Again...I'm not saying I'm not hostile. I'm as hostile as they come, so please show me where I inferred the opposite.

Tolerance and respect are two different things. I tolerate religion every single day, that doesn't mean I automatically have to respect it, and it doesn't mean it is above criticism. My opinion may be an "attack" from their point of view, but it's a defense from mine. Suddenly I'm "strident" because I'm making a valid criticism of their beliefs, when in any other realm of discourse it wouldn't be seen that way at all.

Also, I refute your claim that there are more intolerant atheists than religious people (I know you said "I know" as a personal experience thing, but you used it as an argument for an objective truth). There are far more closet atheists than closet christians, we see christian functions getting government funding where atheist ones don't, christian lobby groups censoring tv shows, etc. Not to mention gay marriage and abortion, the pillars of religious intolerance in a supposedly secular society. Religious intolerance is rampant, to say otherwise is a ludicrous claim.

I'm not talking about "some random", I'm talking about some of my best friends.

I'll tell you something; you're one of the most hated stereotypes on the internet. I should know, I used to be that. But then I turned 14, and grew out of it. You deserve less respect than any religion, because you intend to be a disrespectful jerk.

You sound exactly like any fundamentalist Christian: "I tolerate religion every single day, that doesn't mean I automatically have to respect it, and it doesn't mean it is above criticism. My opinion may be an "attack" from their point of view, but it's a defense from mine. Suddenly I'm "strident" because I'm making a valid criticism of their beliefs, when in any other realm of discourse it wouldn't be seen that way at all." ANY fundamentalist Christian. Just flip the faith around.

People DON'T want their beliefs attacked for NO REASON. If they choose not to take part because of offence, then you have no right to try and push it on them. Take the fucking hint.

Oh, and I'm atheist, I just think you're an idiot.

Faitheists like you are the reason religion is put in a giant criticism bubble. I think that's far worse of a crime than being an "internet stereotype". I didn't say anything hateful or even angry in my post, yet you paint me as a raging fundy. First of all, the only fundamental ideal within atheism is a lack of belief. Which means all atheists are fundamentalists. Learn what these words mean before you go plastering them about on the internet.

I'm not "attacking" (again, the only difference between attack and defense is who strikes first...as far as I'm concerned, they did) for no reason. I'm making valid criticisms due to religion holding back science, morality and equality. I have more than enough reasons to criticise it. Even if I was just making observations or pointing out hypocrisies, I don't need a reason for that. Religion is the only belief system in the world that people won't let you criticise when you notice something you don't agree with. I have no right to "push it on them"? I'm exposing them to my beliefs, the same way they "expose" me to theirs. I believe in freedom of speech, and I have every right to express my distaste with religion, how dare you suggest otherwise. If people take offense that's their problem - I take offense with their religions but you don't see me burying my head in the sand over it. They need to offer some arguments to the contrary, rather than raising their white flags.

On religion and science, religion makes metaphysical claims - creation, miracles, etc. that would break the scientific laws of nature if they were true. How is that not encroaching on science's territory? Metaphysical religious claims should be measured by scientific standards, just as everything else is. If you don't like that, then just call the bible what it is - symbolism.

In terms of "explaining" morality, religion doesn't actually do that. We're told how to be moral (or immoral, depending on your point of view), but the only reason we're given as to why is because "god says so". What made god decide these were proper moral standards? At least science is starting to explain morality through the evolution of mutually beneficial altruism. But no, science doesn't tell us how to be moral...does it need to? Do we really need some greater force telling us not to kill people? I think in terms of teaching us how to be moral, the abrahamic religions have all their work ahead of them.

I think deism is a far more plausible and respectable belief than theism. Although it does seem a little agnostic (in the sense of knowledge, not belief) almost to the point of agnostic atheism.

 

[Angerwing]

Faitheists like you are the reason religion is put in a giant criticism bubble. I think that's far worse of a crime than being an "internet stereotype". I didn't say anything hateful or even angry in my post, yet you paint me as a raging fundy. First of all, the only fundamental ideal within atheism is a lack of belief. Which means all atheists are fundamentalists. Learn what these words mean before you go plastering them about on the internet.

I'm not "attacking" (again, the only difference between attack and defense is who strikes first...as far as I'm concerned, they did) for no reason. I'm making valid criticisms due to religion holding back science, morality and equality. I have more than enough reasons to criticise it. Even if I was just making observations or pointing out hypocrisies, I don't need a reason for that. Religion is the only belief system in the world that people won't let you criticise when you notice something you don't agree with. I have no right to "push it on them"? I'm exposing them to my beliefs, the same way they "expose" me to theirs. I believe in freedom of speech, and I have every right to express my distaste with religion, how dare you suggest otherwise. If people take offense that's their problem - I take offense with their religions but you don't see me burying my head in the sand over it. They need to offer some arguments to the contrary, rather than raising their white flags.

On religion and science, religion makes metaphysical claims - creation, miracles, etc. that would break the scientific laws of nature if they were true. How is that not encroaching on science's territory? Metaphysical religious claims should be measured by scientific standards, just as everything else is. If you don't like that, then just call the bible what it is - symbolism.

In terms of "explaining" morality, religion doesn't actually do that. We're told how to be moral (or immoral, depending on your point of view), but the only reason we're given as to why is because "god says so". What made god decide these were proper moral standards? At least science is starting to explain morality through the evolution of mutually beneficial altruism. But no, science doesn't tell us how to be moral...does it need to? Do we really need some greater force telling us not to kill people? I think in terms of teaching us how to be moral, the abrahamic religions have all their work ahead of them.

I think deism is a far more plausible and respectable belief than theism. Although it does seem a little agnostic (in the sense of knowledge, not belief) almost to the point of agnostic atheism.

I agree with your views. I'm atheist, and I have a lot of criticisms against religion that match pretty well to yours. I hate religion. But I have the simple human decency to not be aggressive about my hatred. I'm going to stop at that, because I really can't be fucked going any further.