Vault9 Forums > Atheists and Anger

Help - Search - Members - Calendar

Full Version: Atheists and Anger

Vault9 Forums > V9 Unplugged > The Colosseum

Custom Search

RustPuppet

Oct 17 2007, 11:37 PM

Some excerpts from an excellent article on atheism and anger, and why it is justified:

QUOTE

Atheists and Anger

I want to talk about atheists and anger.

This has been a hard piece to write, and it may be a hard one to read. I'm not going to be as polite and good-tempered as I usually am in this blog; this piece is about anger, and for once I'm going to fucking well let myself be angry.

But I think it's important. One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So I want to talk about:

1. Why atheists are angry;

2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary;

And 3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us.

So let's start with why we're angry. Or rather -- because this is my blog and I don't presume to speak for all atheists -- why I'm angry.

*****

I'm angry that according to a recent Gallup poll, only 45 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for President.

I'm angry that atheist conventions have to have extra security, including hand-held metal detectors and bag searches, because of fatwas and death threats.

I'm angry that atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- have had prayer ceremonies pressured on them and atheist meetings broken up by Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that evangelical Christian groups are being given exclusive access to proselytize on military bases -- again in the U.S. armed forces, again in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that atheist soldiers who are complaining about this are being harassed and are even getting death threats from Christian soldiers and superior officers -- yet again, in the U.S. armed forces. And I'm angry that Christians still say smug, sanctimonious things like, "there are no atheists in foxholes." You know why you're not seeing atheists in foxholes? Because believers are threatening to shoot them if they come out.

I'm angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." My President. No, I didn't vote for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of religious belief meant that I shouldn't be regarded as a citizen.

I'm angry that it took until 1961 for atheists to be guaranteed the right to serve on juries, testify in court, or hold public office in every state in the country.

I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism. And not a broad, "God had a hand in evolution" creationism, but a strict, young-earth, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" creationism.

And on that topic: I'm angry that school boards all across this country are still -- 82 years after the Scopes trial -- having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. School boards are not exactly loaded with time and money and resources, and any of the time/ money/ resources that they're spending fighting this stupid fight is time/ money/ resources that they're not spending, you know, teaching.

I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.

I'm angry that women are having septic abortions -- or are being forced to have unwanted children who they resent and mistreat -- because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible.

linkage

This is just a small portion of the article, read the whole thing for some more interesting points.

Funnily enough I came across this today after having a very similar discussion about this topic just last week. Can't say that I disagree with any of the points either (apart from the minor error of using 'The Origin of Species' as a reference pic for the evolution argument when the paper itself is not primarily concerned with evolution.)

Opinions?

(Note that this isn't a discussion about the existence of God: this is about the argument between atheists and religious people. Not that there's not room for it here, but if you want to specifically argue that point then please post in this thread.)

RenegadeNukes

Oct 26 2007, 07:12 AM

Despite the validity of the statement and the facts that support the argument.

One must realize that nothing in this world is perfect, all religions were based on the principle of providing people with a sense of order from which they can lead proper lives. To quote a paradox in our lives "Without Law and Order, man has no freedom".

It is true that the principles are old and perhaps in some cases outdated, the message still remains. It provides followers a mean of leading there lives properly.

Extremism is not just the Al Quada lunatics and the lot, their are so many people who are stupid, a menace and only interested in causing mayhem - who hide under the shield of Religion. To quote your article - the people who molest children and claim it is "god's will" etc.

I am myself a Hindu and i am coming in defense of the Catholic Church, believe it or not. It is a 2000 year old intuition and it will not be possible to change, as if your change a certain thing to please 10 people, it will end up displeasing 20 people. Hence the AIDS and the Gallielo incident

Religions can not be changed at will, how will people know what the original was if people are allowed to modify it at will. Granted that things do need an update for present times, but that is life. Nothing is constant... ever

Surge

Oct 26 2007, 07:24 AM

Nicely put, Nukes.

Gitano

Oct 26 2007, 10:23 AM

You sure your only 15?

I agree with Nukes, but then again, I agree with a large portion of that article too. Lose/lose

RenegadeNukes

Oct 26 2007, 11:48 PM

QUOTE

Nicely put, Nukes.

Why thank you Sadist!!!

QUOTE

You sure your only 15?

Quite sure i am, Gitano.

LegendofMax

Oct 27 2007, 12:31 AM

Heheh, yea Nukes has his way round words (you should see his geography coursework, its amazing)

Yes i Agree with Nukes but also with Rusty; somehow i do believe that American do vote for an atheist.

A strong quote I do believe in this matter would be:

QUOTE

Without Chaos this order cannot exist

Think about it. If there were no fightings, no wars, no deputes, no conflict, no disagreement and no differences; then dont you think society would end all together?

RenegadeNukes

Oct 27 2007, 06:18 AM

QUOTE

Think about it. If there were no fightings, no wars, no deputes, no conflict, no disagreement and no differences; then dont you think society would end all together?

Would have to dis agree with you their LOM. True society as we know it today is rife with those things, but if they all dissapeared surely we would have a muchg more peacefull existence

It will never happen - but it would be damn nice if we could find a way to do so

RustPuppet

Oct 29 2007, 11:15 PM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Oct 26 2007, 04:12 PM)

Religions can not be changed at will, how will people know what the original was if people are allowed to modify it at will. Granted that things do need an update for present times, but that is life. Nothing is constant... ever

As profoundly Utopian as that was you just completely contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.

Anyway, on to one of my favourite gripes about organized religion.

Do you realize how much of the Bible has been lost in translation over the decades? When did a lot of the mistakes and contradictions pop up?

This is one of the reasons why I gave up Catholicism in favour of a far less hypocritical and narrow-minded atheist existence: people blindly follow the Bible without realizing how much of it has changed since its inception. In fact, I have far more respect for the Koran which doesn't get 'updated' all the damn time.

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Oct 26 2007, 04:12 PM)

I am myself a Hindu and i am coming in defense of the Catholic Church, believe it or not. It is a 2000 year old intuition and it will not be possible to change, as if your change a certain thing to please 10 people, it will end up displeasing 20 people. Hence the AIDS and the Gallielo incident

Since when is religion about pleasing people? The point is not to change it to appease the masses, it should be changed to accommodate changes in the world for the better.

The Church changes things to suit itself and they've been known to recant statements when things don't go their way. And people base their lives on this stuff? Pah.

"Oh shit, our people are being ravaged by HIV/AIDS! We better not use condoms!"

And bear in mind that this "2000 year old institution" was formed by a bunch of guys who were convinced that the world was flat.

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Oct 27 2007, 03:18 PM)

Would have to dis agree with you their LOM. True society as we know it today is rife with those things, but if they all dissapeared surely we would have a muchg more peacefull existence

Well if you want to aim for such an idealistic world then perhaps we should look at changing or, dare I say it, even scrapping that which has been responsible for probably the greatest portion of all conflict in our history.

Can you guess what it is?

Clue: it breeds segregation faster than a pork pie at a bar mitzvah.

RenegadeNukes

Nov 2 2007, 01:15 PM

QUOTE

As profoundly Utopian as that was you just completely contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences.

How is that a contradicton, please do tell

QUOTE

Do you realize how much of the Bible has been lost in translation over the decades? When did a lot of the mistakes and contradictions pop up?

This is one of the reasons why I gave up Catholicism in favour of a far less hypocritical and narrow-minded atheist existence: people blindly follow the Bible without realizing how much of it has changed since its inception. In fact, I have far more respect for the Koran which doesn't get 'updated' all the damn time.

I'm not a christian so i don't know about how the "updates" have had any effect, all holy books have gone through time and as a result may have been changed - exception i know being Hinduism which has not.

QUOTE

I gave up Catholicism in favour of a far less hypocritical and narrow-minded atheist existence:

Rusty, so if you don't believe in a higher power, then who do you put your faith in? Human kind?

QUOTE

And bear in mind that this "2000 year old institution" was formed by a bunch of guys who were convinced that the world was flat.

So would you and everyone else 2000 years ago. Yes its outdated so to speak. But that in no way discredits the rest of it.

QUOTE

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Oct 27 2007, 03:18 PM) *
Would have to dis agree with you their LOM. True society as we know it today is rife with those things, but if they all dissapeared surely we would have a muchg more peacefull existence

Well if you want to aim for such an idealistic world then perhaps we should look at changing or, dare I say it, even scrapping that which has been responsible for probably the greatest portion of all conflict in our history.

Can you guess what it is?

Clue: it breeds segregation faster than a pork pie at a bar mitzvah.

Yeah sure, blame religion on the worlds problems. Its the fanatics that have caused these problems, even from ancient times. NOT the general masses. And by the way i know that such a society is impossible. But that doesn't stop the philosophical side of me from talking about how things could be.

As a final point, whether you are religious or not doesn't make you any less or more of an idiot. Which most of the people who make the news on this topic are

Gitano

Nov 2 2007, 06:02 PM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Oct 26 2007, 10:12 AM)

Ill answer the first part for Rusty...

Above you say: "Religions cannot change at will". Then you say: "Things need an updat", and then: "Nothing is constant."

How can religions NOT change at will if they DO change over time because nothing is constant?

RenegadeNukes

Nov 2 2007, 11:16 PM

QUOTE

How can religions NOT change at will if they DO change over time because nothing is constant?

I am reffering mainly to how people should not be allowed to simply rewrite the Bible or whatever at will (granted that it has been done in the past) but it still should not be allowed. The world is never constant, times change and inevitably religion will as well. In an ideal world it would remain constant and accurate for all time. But not so in our world

RustPuppet

Nov 3 2007, 01:56 AM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 2 2007, 10:15 PM)

How is that a contradicton, please do tell

Gitano spotted it. 100 lesbian points for you Devon

QUOTE

Rusty, so if you don't believe in a higher power, then who do you put your faith in? Human kind?

I put faith in myself and in select groups or individuals. (There are too many psychos and fuck-ups to put faith in all of humankind.)

This raises another point with which religious people often seem to disagree for some reason: you don't need religion to have faith.

Also of interest here is Satanism. Now before you brand me a heretic/pagan/George Bush you should know that Satanists do not actually worship Satan. Rather, they believe that the individual is their 'own God' of sorts i.e. you alone are responsible for yourself and your actions. Although I'm not a Satanist this belief happens to tie in rather nicely with my libertarian stance thus I still have some respect for it.

QUOTE

And bear in mind that this "2000 year old institution" was formed by a bunch of guys who were convinced that the world was flat.

So would you and everyone else 2000 years ago. Yes its outdated so to speak. But that in no way discredits the rest of it.

Of course it does, or at least opens up the possibility. Firstly, not everyone thought the world was flat back then. It took a few open-minded individuals some time to prove it but look what happened in the end.

Second, being outdated can very easily mean something is discredited, so you can't use that as a defense here. For example, some years we said cloning was impossible, but now that thought is outdated and obsolete as we have proven that it's incorrect. I'm sure you can think of a virtually infinite number of additional examples here.

QUOTE

Please don't misquote me. I said religion was responsible for the greatest portion of conflict, not "all the world's problems."

And where do you think the fanatics came from? Suicide bombers still blow shit up in the name of their God, and who are those who also follow that religion to say that they are wrong? If you're allowed to interpret the teachings of your religion in the way that you do, why can't the suicide bombers?

You also have a warped view of what philosophy actually is. Being idealist and looking at only one side of an argument is very far from philosophy.

As for your final point: see above.

Oh, and intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Gitano

Nov 3 2007, 03:00 AM

Nukes please re read what you just wrote.

you said:
I am reffering mainly to how (*1)people should not be allowed to simply rewrite the Bible or whatever at will (granted that it has been done in the past) but it still should not be allowed. The world is never constant, times change and (*2)inevitably religion will as well. In an ideal world it would remain constant and accurate for all time. But not so in our world

*1 contradicts *2 buddy. How can religion change is people aren't allowed to re write the bible?
Either it remains constant, in which case it DOESN'T change, or it DOES change and it remains updated, your choice, you cant have it both ways.

RenegadeNukes

Nov 8 2007, 07:22 AM

QUOTE

*1 contradicts *2 buddy. How can religion change is people aren't allowed to re write the bible?

Language dude. Languages change devolop and during translation things will change. How much has changed from Latin to English par example.

QUOTE

You also have a warped view of what philosophy actually is. Being idealist and looking at only one side of an argument is very far from philosophy.

Before you launch a personal attack on me Rusty. This has absolutely bugger all to do with philiosiphy. FYI I do not have a warped sense of philispophy. Philisophy is about thought about our world. Religion is a completely different cup of tea

How is defending my stance as a religious person warping my views on philisophy. I am fine with people critisicing my viewpoints / argument, but that is just a load of bullshit

QUOTE

Second, being outdated can very easily mean something is discredited, so you can't use that as a defense here. For example, some years we said cloning was impossible, but now that thought is outdated and obsolete as we have proven that it's incorrect. I'm sure you can think of a virtually infinite number of additional examples here.

I would think that help on how to live your life is a tad bit more important than earth is flat or not.

We live in sich a world that we can never take advice on life from people - you never know who has the motive. Okay chuck away religion, where the hell do you think our ethics and morals came from in the first place

russell

Nov 8 2007, 08:23 AM

Morality comes from society and it's general values, a product of the zeitgeist. Our morality doesn't come from religions.

The basic argument against it is that within the bible, the Koran and just about any other book you'd care to name there are rules of morality that we don't follow and would be abhorred by if anyone did. So those books in their totality don't give us our morality. If we say it's the pick and mix approach where we take what is appropriate and leave what isn't, there needs to be an external standard that we judge it against. It would then be that external standard that's the morality we have, not the stuff in the religious book.

Changing moral views come from the zeitgeist and what is and isn't regarded as moral changes. In the 1600's slavery was fine. In the early 1900's it was only very progressive radicals who regarded women as being near to equal to men. Today anyone who thinks they aren't equal is regarded as an aberration. In 1957 in England, Alan Turing was found guilty of homosexuality, forced to choose between jail or chemical castration, he opted to kill himself. That charge of homosexuality garnered him wide contempt for his immoral behaviour. Today, most people tend to accept homosexuality, those who don't are regarded as being outdated or behind the times with their view. The moral view changed and yet the line religions have been touting has not changed.

Islamic states follow the morality contained in their religion, solely because that religion is their culture. The culture gave them their moral precepts centuries ago and it has not changed. They are a case of total overlap of the religious values and the cultures moral values, most people have less of an overlap, if you're an atheist, there's no overlap at all.

FaTal

Nov 8 2007, 01:16 PM

Nukes, I think you need to do a bit of rethinking. We don't get our morals and ethics from religion. They are basic instincts. I'm an atheist, and I can tell you that I do not get ANY of my morals or ethics from religion. Its logical that I must not steal or kill as they will have very bad consequences. Same can be applied for most morals and ethical values.

If people need religion as a "guide for their life", then they can do so, but when they start imposing their guide on other people, then it becomes a different story and is the cause for the anger.

Nobody can justify racism, and likewise oppression of atheists is not justified and should be dealt with appropriately. From the extract of the article, it is clear he is talking about the anger us atheists feel as a result of oppression by those who are religious. Our anger is certainly justified.

Despite this, I think the situation is getting better. More and more atheists are coming out of the closet making us more than just a minority group. This will make it harder for us to be oppressed and disregarded.

RustPuppet

Nov 9 2007, 06:02 AM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 8 2007, 04:22 PM)

Language dude. Languages change devolop and during translation things will change. How much has changed from Latin to English par example.

Again you contradict yourself. You're now citing language change as the culprit yet earlier you said religions do not change?

Also, kindly explain to me how Latin has 'changed to' English? They are two completely different languages; English isn't even remotely in the same family! Yes, English does borrow some small bits from Latin, but you have no clue what you're on about in your example.

FYI, English is a descendant of West Germanic, whereas Latin is part of the Italic languages. Coincidentally English borrows very heavily from French, which happens to also be an Italic language, but there's still virtually no correlation.

QUOTE

Firstly, put on your big girl panties and stop crying. No one is launching personal attacks.

If you care to read my statement you will see that I said that 'looking at one side of the argument is not philosophy.' Philosophy is based on principles of reasoning and logic, and theology is VERY much a part of that. It is also based on RATIONAL thinking. What you are discussing is more ethics and morality than anything else.

Don't preach about your philosophical nature when you don't understand the basic principles yet: throwing out personal nuggets of wisdom like "Nothing is constant" is NOT a philosophical argument, it's a PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY or OBSERVATION. Compare something like that to a true philosophical construct like metaphysics or existentialism.

I'm not attacking you here, I'm trying to explain that you're taking the concept of philosophy the wrong way. Chill.

QUOTE

We live in sich a world that we can never take advice on life from people - you never know who has the motive. Okay chuck away religion, where the hell do you think our ethics and morals came from in the first place

I disagree: you do not need religion to live a moral and ethical life.

Do you think everyone was an immoral savage before religion? Do you think remote desert tribesmen are depraved, soulless heathens because they've never heard of religion?

Sigh, another ad hoc argument. Again you fail to provide a logical structure for your position. Also, by your logic all atheists are psycho killer-rapists i.e.

Premise 1: All our ethics and morals came from religion. (You state this above.)
Premise 2: Atheists do not have religion. (An obvious fact that forms the basis for their existence.)
Conclusion: Atheists do no have ethics and morals.

Right, now clearly this is an invalid argument, for I myself am an atheist and have a very good grasp of ethics and morality. Thus, one of our premises must be incorrect, and since it can't be premise 2 then it must be premise 1 i.e. your statement.

Therefore, by my logic, you are incorrect.

See? Philosophy in action.

RenegadeNukes

Nov 9 2007, 06:35 AM

QUOTE

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 8 2007, 04:22 PM) *
Language dude. Languages change devolop and during translation things will change. How much has changed from Latin to English par example.

Again you contradict yourself. You're now citing language change as the culprit yet earlier you said religions do not change?

Also, kindly explain to me how Latin has 'changed to' English? They are two completely different languages; English isn't even remotely in the same family! Yes, English does borrow some small bits from Latin, but you have no clue what you're on about in your example.

FYI, English is a descendant of West Germanic, whereas Latin is part of the Italic languages. Coincidentally English borrows very heavily from French, which happens to also be an Italic language, but there's still virtually no correlation.

Sleep in History class? The Vatican wrote everything in Latin my friend. As English started to grow it was converted. Your statement only supports my point there.

QUOTE

QUOTE
Before you launch a personal attack on me Rusty. This has absolutely bugger all to do with philiosiphy. FYI I do not have a warped sense of philispophy. Philisophy is about thought about our world. Religion is a completely different cup of tea

How is defending my stance as a religious person warping my views on philisophy. I am fine with people critisicing my viewpoints / argument, but that is just a load of bullshit
Firstly, put on your big girl panties and stop crying. No one is launching personal attacks.

I smell a hypocrite.

I never said this was a philisophical argument dude. I consider philisophy and religion on a completely different path altogther.

QUOTE

I'm not attacking you here, I'm trying to explain that you're taking the concept of philosophy the wrong way. Chill.

Then why the girl panties jibe. I responded without throwing a bitchfit or flaming you. You have no basis for that jibe.

My personal view is that our morals and ethics were inspired in some form or the other by what religion has taught us. I can not think of another reason for where they have come from.

QUOTE

Sigh, another ad hoc argument. Again you fail to provide a logical structure for your position. Also, by your logic all atheists are psycho killer-rapists i.e.

Premise 1: All our ethics and morals came from religion. (You state this above.)
Premise 2: Atheists do not have religion. (An obvious fact that forms the basis for their existence.)
Conclusion: Atheists do no have ethics and morals.

Don't misquote me. I said that our morals and ethics came from religion at one point or the other. GYI the vast majority of my friends are aesthists and from my understanding they have taken what they have liked out of religious ideas and used that as th source of their morality. I am aware that a lot of this pick and mix has taken place thousands of years ago and therefore it has been passed down without religion being involved.

I reiterate that this is my opinion of how things came to be. Perhaps i am failing to see the picture because i am religios, was raised in a very religous family (that has been so for generations) and the thought of converting has never even crossed my mind.

QUOTE

Premise 1: All our ethics and morals came from religion. (You state this above.)
Premise 2: Atheists do not have religion. (An obvious fact that forms the basis for their existence.)
Conclusion: Atheists do no have ethics and morals.

They do not have religion, but they will have got ethics and morals i suspect from your parents, peers and other influences. My opinion is that those morals orginitated from religion at some point of time. I have no proof or motive for saying that - it is just how i believe it happened.

QUOTE

Right, now clearly this is an invalid argument, for I myself am an atheist and have a very good grasp of ethics and morality. Thus, one of our premises must be incorrect, and since it can't be premise 2 then it must be premise 1 i.e. your statement.

Disagree, neither is invalid or valid. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to believe (providing it does no harm to others). Religion after all is to help you lead a better life, if you prefer to live with or without it is your decision. I am not going to change it.

QUOTE

Therefore, by my logic, you are incorrect.

See? Philosophy in action.

By MY logic i nor you are not incorrect. My logic shows that you have missed the point of my thought completely.

Lets keep this discussion flowing but their is no need to degenerate it into pointless name calling

RustPuppet

Nov 9 2007, 07:06 AM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 9 2007, 03:35 PM)

Sleep in History class? The Vatican wrote everything in Latin my friend. As English started to grow it was converted. Your statement only supports my point there.

No, it did not. I have an Honours degree in Linguistics, specializing in Historical and Social Ling. You are WAY out of your league here.

Kindly reread my previous post: Latin and English are TWO SEPARATE LANGUAGES.

QUOTE

I smell a hypocrite.

I never said this was a philisophical argument dude. I consider philisophy and religion on a completely different path altogther.

You also clearly do not know the definition of 'hypocrite.' Or of 'theology.'

I never said you claimed this to be a philosophical argument: I was discussing your claims of philosophy. Perhaps this is an argument for another thread though.

QUOTE

That is not a personal attack. It's a phrase to say 'harden the fuck up,' not to insult your choice of undergarments. Relax.

QUOTE

What? Your atheist friends took their morality from religion? Whoa, way to have an open mind. That has to be the most narrow-minded statement in this thread.

Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE IN RELIGION. You CANNOT be an atheist and follow religious principles.

Perhaps this means such principles are not in fact based on religion? Hmmm.

QUOTE

But above you said morals and ethics came from religion? I can quote it if you like.

Changing your stance in the middle of your argument does not bode well!

QUOTE

Are you even reading what I write? By my logic above that is clearly a valid argument based on the truth of the premises.

Please admit you are incorrect rather than backtrack by changing your opinion to neither here nor there.

"Neither is invalid or valid"? What are we living in, the damn Matrix? Validity is a binary antonym my friend i.e. yes or no, wrong or right.

If we had to follow your logic again we could also say, "He's neither dead or alive."

Geez.

QUOTE

By MY logic i nor you are not incorrect. My logic shows that you have missed the point of my thought completely.

OMG, I am going to chew through my own wrists.

Logic either is or it isn't, you can't sit on the fence. Why must you immediately do so whenever you start to lose the argument? Why do you constantly provide vague answers when I have clearly given a valid rebuttal?

Can someone with some working knowledge of logic PLEASE help me explain this better here? RevQ?

Read and absorb, please.

russell

Nov 9 2007, 07:52 AM

Nukes, you say religion influences morality. Point 1.

You say that Christianity changed when the bible was translated from Latin to English. Point 2.

So then, because the religion changed as a result of a translation, the morality coming from it is different and we don't what the original morality was. This would happen when translated to Russian, Spanish, French and so on. By this reasoning, an Italian christian would have a different moral system from a Spaniard christian, there would also be differences with Russian christians, Welsh christians and so on.

The morality is no different though. So either morality did not come from religion or translations don't change the message. Take your pick and then I'll continue.

RustPuppet

Nov 9 2007, 08:08 AM

Bloody hell, I completely missed that point.

*sips Amstel slower*

However Nukes, I think regardless of the confusion over whether Latin became English or whether the Bible was translated into English is made irrelevant either way:

1. If you're saying Latin became English, you're wrong. (See above for proof.)
2. If you're saying the Bible was translated into English from Latin, you're also wrong. Since when was the Bible originally written in Latin?
3. If you're now admitting that there are changes in the Bible due to language translation you're wrong again as you prove my/Gitano's point of you contradicting yourself in the very beginning.

So which is it?

RustPuppet

Nov 9 2007, 08:16 AM

Something to lighten the mood (or not)...

Gitano

Nov 9 2007, 10:56 AM

Rofl.
Thanks for the link to Wiki rusty, this thread has totally rekindled my interest in philosophy, I am admittedly a moron when it comes to such profound thinking, and I don't understand a lot of what I read but it still interests the hell out of me.

Anyway, the Bible was written in Aramaic was it not?
But yes, the bible was cannonised by the church.

russell

Nov 9 2007, 01:25 PM

Gitano, if you're getting that interested in philosophy, I have a forum you should check out. Saying no more to keep in line with any spamming rules there may be

Yeah, the bible was written in Aramaic afaik.

Carrots

Nov 10 2007, 02:36 AM

The sad part is how true that pic of Rusty's is.

RustPuppet

Nov 10 2007, 02:47 AM

Go ahead and post it RevQ, sounds like it could be quite relevant to the discussion.

russell

Nov 10 2007, 03:36 AM

Right, since I have approval enough to overcome my odd bout of lawful goodness

Belief.co.za

RenegadeNukes

Nov 10 2007, 07:26 AM

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

But i fold.

Mainly because i no longer have a clue what i am supposed to be arguing about

RustPuppet

Nov 10 2007, 07:56 AM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 10 2007, 04:26 PM)

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

But i fold.

Mainly because i no longer have a clue what i am supposed to be arguing about

Bull. I don't mean this in a nasty way or as a personal attack, but what a cop-out.

You start to notice holes in your argument so you claim ignorance. Never mind defying the most basic principles of logic and answering every rebuttal with a completely vague answer that constantly begs the question, I feel like my time has been wasted typing up all my comments.

In future either opt out sooner or don't argue at all if you feel you're out of your depth. It's polite and doesn't leave other people hanging

Right, next spokesman for the opposition, please.

RenegadeNukes

Nov 10 2007, 08:20 AM

QUOTE

In my defense this topic has swered so far off where it began. It began with me accepting the truth in that article and putting forward my views.

I have not claimed ignorance or brushed something off by saying "its not relevant". Fine if my answers aren't up to your standards. go and climb a tree. Thats not my fault.

I have very little left to say on this topic because believe it or not i am not someone who has extensively studied religion. I only know what i follow as a result i am not in the position for example to be arguing about the bible - because i am not / never was / never will be a Christian.

I simply can not understand where you are going with your side of the argument or where this whole thread is going. Therefore i am doing the logical thing and closing my argument.

QUOTE

In future either opt out sooner or don't argue at all if you feel you're out of your depth. It's polite and doesn't leave other people hanging

Have a re read of this, look at where it started. At that point it was discussing the validity of that article it is now me defending the entire concept of religion. That job is for the clergy / priests / monks etc. I am a believer and i can only defend my stance with my perosnal opinion and views - hence why you find it"vague"

Mr. Magic Matrix

Nov 10 2007, 08:27 AM

Okay i wanted to stay out of this, but i just have this to say

Guys look at what is going on, you are expecting a 15 year old person who has not even experienced 1% of the world to defend religion itself, sheesh even the pope can't do that properly.

I don't think that Nukes could have answered in any other way but from personal opinion and knowledge. This started small and got bigger. I don't consider it a cop out at all that he folded now (i expected it to come a lot earlier).

You are asking the questions, questions that i doubt anyone could answer - let alone a fifteen year old.

Just my 2c - but i reckon he has done a great job in this discussion taking into consideration that this comes from my viewpoint and my knowledge is very much scarce. I'm only 14.

RustPuppet

Nov 10 2007, 08:35 AM

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 10 2007, 05:20 PM)

I have not claimed ignorance

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 10 2007, 04:26 PM)

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

Mainly because i no longer have a clue what i am supposed to be arguing about

QUOTE

Fine if my answers aren't up to your standards. go and climb a tree.

QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 9 2007, 03:35 PM)

Lets keep this discussion flowing but their is no need to degenerate it into pointless name calling

QUOTE

I have very little left to say on this topic because believe it or not i am not someone who has extensively studied religion. I only know what i follow as a result i am not in the position for example to be arguing about the bible - because i am not / never was / never will be a Christian.

Ah, but then you can't start arguing about the Bible when it suits you and then claim you're not in a position to do so when you're proven incorrect.

4.

QUOTE

I simply can not understand where you are going with your side of the argument or where this whole thread is going. Therefore i am doing the logical thing and closing my argument.

Logic is not just 'closing your argument' when you feel you're against a wall. Try to listen to other people's viewpoints and acknowledge them.

5.

QUOTE

I am a believer and i can only defend my stance with my perosnal opinion and views - hence why you find it"vague"

Again, not a personal attack here, but I can point out several examples above where you completely circumvented the question with a deliberately vague, non-committal answer.

As I said above, if you find that one of your points has been disproved then acknowledge it and move on, or at least admit you're getting lost instead of just yanking people's chains with vague answers. It's the honourable thing to do in a debate

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. Scooby Snacks to you though for at least putting up some debatable points in the beginning.

Hmmm RevQ, I may just have to visit your site now (opinions in tow)

QUOTE(Mr. Magic Matrix @ Nov 10 2007, 05:27 PM)

Okay i wanted to stay out of this, but i just have this to say...

... but i reckon he has done a great job in this discussion taking into consideration that this comes from my viewpoint and my knowledge is very much scarce. I'm only 14.

No one expects a 15 year old to have the knowledge of the Pope (or whatever): my point was that if you are out of your depth in a debate then you concede politely instead of giving people the run-around and claiming ignorance.

But, as I said above, for what the kid does know he did a fairly good job of putting his points across.

RenegadeNukes

Nov 10 2007, 08:43 AM

QUOTE

1.
QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 10 2007, 05:20 PM) *
I have not claimed ignorance or brushed something off by saying "its not relevant".
QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 10 2007, 04:26 PM) *
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

Deviations my friend. This thread has started on one plateau and moved to a completely different one

QUOTE

2.
QUOTE
Fine if my answers aren't up to your standards. go and climb a tree.
QUOTE(RenegadeNukes @ Nov 9 2007, 03:35 PM) *
Lets keep this discussion flowing but their is no need to degenerate it into pointless name calling

Part 2a: What else am i supposed to right, my views are only such that
Part 2b: Hey you are the one who threw out the "girl pants and stop crying remark"

QUOTE

3.
QUOTE
I have very little left to say on this topic because believe it or not i am not someone who has extensively studied religion. I only know what i follow as a result i am not in the position for example to be arguing about the bible - because i am not / never was / never will be a Christian.
Ah, but then you can't start arguing about the Bible when it suits you and then claim you're not in a position to do so when you're proven incorrect.

I never was arguing about the bible, i just said people shouldn't be allowed to edit texts, the bible FOR EXAMPLE. Others just took that point and shifted the focus completely

I can take point 4 to heart - that makes sense

QUOTE

5.
QUOTE
I am a believer and i can only defend my stance with my perosnal opinion and views - hence why you find it"vague"

Again, not a personal attack here, but I can point out several examples above where you completely circumvented the question with a deliberately vague, non-committal answer.

As I said above, if you find that one of your points has been disproved then acknowledge it and move on, or at least admit you're getting lost instead of just yanking people's chains with vague answers. It's the honourable thing to do in a debate smile.gif

As said before i can not reply with a commital value as i am aware that knowledge and understanding comes with age and experience, of which i have not had a lot of.

CODE

As I said above, if you find that one of your points has been disproved then acknowledge it and move on, or at least admit you're getting lost instead of just yanking people's chains with vague answers. It's the honourable thing to do in a debate smile.gif

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. Scooby Snacks to you though for at least putting up some debatable points in the beginning.

Mr. Magic Matrix

Nov 10 2007, 08:44 AM

To add my thing again, i was lost too.

have no idea how it got from post 1 to 33

Bit of trivia - Nukes is easily the best at the whole public speaking and debating thing in our year and probably one of the best in the school.

We gave him the Nickname the steam roller - mainly because in real life he likes to sit and listen to what people say, then squash their points in one big attack.

Seems that him online and in real life is quite different.

for the effort though. Its never easy to argue on this topic

RustPuppet

Nov 10 2007, 08:47 AM

Read the end of my previous post regarding MMM's comment, just updated it.

BTW Nukes, now you can really mind-fuck people during a religious debate and whip out the killer pro-atheist points above just for kicks

Now, if all that is over with, on with the debate.

RenegadeNukes

Nov 10 2007, 08:50 AM

I was hoping he wouldn't bring that up.

But yeah i do do a lot of debating but its usually on current affairs stuff where i can do my research properly (clearly not the case here)

And don't exaggerate M.mm. I hate that nickname!

Most of the time it will not not "squash" in one attack, but it does work more often than not

And i end up loosing debates in school because i normally take the side that is not in the public favor

Outside school its a toss up

Mr. Magic Matrix

Nov 10 2007, 08:52 AM

I honestly doubt anyone esle on the vault will take up the fight now!

Doesn;'t seem to be many religious people here apart from us 2

QUOTE

BTW Nukes, now you can really mind-fuck people during a religious debate and whip out the killer pro-atheist points above just for kicks

In Bahrain no-no. Last year nukes made a passing comment about the thing in Saudi where women have no rights etc. and he had people in our year phoning up to say that they were going to kill him - i am not joking at all about it.

We have the "Arab Mafia" in force.

Surge

Nov 10 2007, 09:45 AM

QUOTE

Doesn;'t seem to be many religious people here apart from us 2

Or maybe some of us have already debated it to death...

There was this and the very first religion topic on the board, over here.

In the latter, I think I spent like 4 months debating.

Still nice to observe the comments of others though in subsequent topics... If I had to partake, it would mostly just be me repeating myself...

Gitano

Nov 11 2007, 04:29 PM

Lol, Im a little bith of both, but it would be interesting to fight for the religious side for a change

Rusty, Im keen

Lets hear your opening argument, I think things have become a little too murky above for us to continue with the current bout.

RustPuppet

Nov 11 2007, 11:18 PM

Could be a laugh fighting for the existence of religion just to see if I can hold my own against my own arguments.

Although I could always concede early thus proving my original arguments correct

W@RP@T}{

Nov 12 2007, 01:12 AM

sounds like the apartheid "disadvantaged" anger we face here in SA all the time

Gitano

Nov 12 2007, 07:03 AM

Im not going to let you fold Rusty

Ok, lets start.
Rusty, check the new topic

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.