[Discussion] Religion
- Thread starter HashiraMadara
- Start date
- Status
It appears you really are oblivious to the stupidity of your remark. Allow me to explain as simple as possible. You called religion a fan fic. This statement however is erroneous because of both what religion and fiction are. Let's go through some basic education shall we?
"Fiction is the classification for any story created in the imagination,[1][2] rather than based strictly on history or fact.[3][note 1]"
"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".[1] "
Now, while your error may already be clear, your track record makes me assume that you still haven't comprehended the message I'm trying to convey so to put it simply:
Fiction - stories, songs, media in general which is openly based on that which isn't real
Religion - system of beliefs, morals, practices and behaviour in general
Now, yes, yes "poor Dannie-chan was talking about the scripts these religions are centered on rather than the actual belief systems therefore you're falsely accusing him". Well, poor Dannie is wrong about that too. For a fiction, in textual criticism, is defined as that which is openly not based on reality from the point of a writer, in contrast sacred scriptures are (atleast in the largest religions today) not solely of one nature. They range from historical to poetic and as such the texts the religions are based on could hardly be called fictional, especially since the authors deemed them to be reality.
Therefore the only proper term, in the worst case scenario of religion indeed being false, is a historical/cultural fabrication or non-fiction.
"Nonfiction or non-fiction is content (often, in the form of a story) whose creator, in good faith, assumes responsibility for the truth or accuracy of the events, people, and/or information presented."
Thus this statement was nothing more but a petty childish insult which can only be a product of a just as petty childish mind. Though, even if I were wrong here, the immaturity of this user is apparent in his every performance as they'd much rather preffer throwing memes and insults than saying something meaningful to the discussion all while giving a proper dose of destructive behaviour towards all those who disagree with him (bigotry is the term I believe), as is the case here:
You must be registered for see images
Hate to break it to you Dannie, but I don't go around insulting others for holding a different worldview or negging them for pointing out the fallacies in my logic. I'm simply here to have a fun discussion, but I gotta say you've proven yourself to be quite entertaining as I wouldn't be making this post as a sign of my gratitude. One can only hope tho, that one day you outgrow this phase and start acting in atleast somewhat more mature manner. (Especially if you're going to criticise other's lack of maturity)
It's man made, which makes it fanfiction.
Stop crying and get over it.
ComplexCity
Banned
All of this is moot but the bold which is irrelevant for obvious reasons for the simple fact that I told you that both you and I find it to be immoral, which tells me you don't read for s**t
>ReligionIt appears you really are oblivious to the stupidity of your remark. Allow me to explain as simple as possible. You called religion a fan fic. This statement however is erroneous because of both what religion and fiction are. Let's go through some basic education shall we?
"Fiction is the classification for any story created in the imagination,[1][2] rather than based strictly on history or fact.[3][note 1]"
"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".[1] "
Now, while your error may already be clear, your track record makes me assume that you still haven't comprehended the message I'm trying to convey so to put it simply:
Fiction - stories, songs, media in general which is openly based on that which isn't real
Religion - system of beliefs, morals, practices and behaviour in general
Now, yes, yes "poor Dannie-chan was talking about the scripts these religions are centered on rather than the actual belief systems therefore you're falsely accusing him". Well, poor Dannie is wrong about that too. For a fiction, in textual criticism, is defined as that which is openly not based on reality from the point of a writer, in contrast sacred scriptures are (atleast in the largest religions today) not solely of one nature. They range from historical to poetic and as such the texts the religions are based on could hardly be called fictional, especially since the authors deemed them to be reality.
Therefore the only proper term, in the worst case scenario of religion indeed being false, is a historical/cultural fabrication or non-fiction.
"Nonfiction or non-fiction is content (often, in the form of a story) whose creator, in good faith, assumes responsibility for the truth or accuracy of the events, people, and/or information presented."
Thus this statement was nothing more but a petty childish insult which can only be a product of a just as petty childish mind. Though, even if I were wrong here, the immaturity of this user is apparent in his every performance as they'd much rather preffer throwing memes and insults than saying something meaningful to the discussion all while giving a proper dose of destructive behaviour towards all those who disagree with him (bigotry is the term I believe), as is the case here:
You must be registered for see images
Hate to break it to you Dannie, but I don't go around insulting others for holding a different worldview or negging them for pointing out the fallacies in my logic. I'm simply here to have a fun discussion, but I gotta say you've proven yourself to be quite entertaining as I wouldn't be making this post as a sign of my gratitude. One can only hope tho, that one day you outgrow this phase and start acting in atleast somewhat more mature manner. (Especially if you're going to criticise other's lack of maturity)
>Fact
lol
"Fiction and Religion - stories, songs, media in general which is openly based on that which isn't real"
*fixed
Show me God and I'll give you a $1...
ComplexCity
Banned
The reaching is strong with this one
So I see you don't read either when I specifically said I find it to be immoral
Nice try though
Here's another quarter :|
Last edited:
First of all, I appreciated your reply and your tone. I find it hard to meet declared Atheists who avoid aggressive approaches and use other arguments and not only the speculation of "There's no proof God exists, therefore He doesn't".
And about western Europe, well, it's true. I actually live in western Europe and know how things work. Well, all my friends are Atheists or non-religious, and so are a good 90% of the people I know (over, let's say, 16 and under 60).
There's been a professor at Beijing university who predicted an increase in the number of Christians in western Europe in the next decades, but I don't know if I should believe him or not. Not the first of my problems, to be honest.
The Christian ethics are, for some extents, a quixotic battle. We can't win against what in the Gospels is called "The World". We can convince someone to redeem and reject his past sins (still knowing everyone of us sins every day), we can teach the Word of God to those who don't know it, and we can struggle to better ourselves and those who are around us, but it stops there.
The Bible also speaks about massive corruptions of the human beings, who will end to be the very most part in the period around the Last Days.
Long story short, I believe if one tries to "save the mankind" with his Christianity, he's actually fighting a quixotic battle.
But if one fights against his sins, and becomes a redeemer for the others (obviously, standing in his possibilities), I don't believe this is a quixotic battle. At all.
Now let's start to address the hot topic.
You will notice that a Christian who's prone to debates like me, in an environment full of anti-religious people like mine (and probably yours, since it seems you're from western Europe too), will very probably end up facing some debates with the other people (friends, relatives, professors at best).
When I do, I make sure to have good reasons in my pocket for three topics:
-The validity of believing in God
-The historic truth of the person of Jesus Christ
-The existence of free will
I believe the argument you brought hits the third point at the full.
What you claim, in short, is basically this: it's been scientifically proven that exist a thing called the "gene of the assassin", which brings some people to be extraordinarily prone to murder. Therefore, it can't exist free will for them, and if free will does not exist, all the notions of good, evil, morality, sin etc. collapse. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood, though.
While I admit this is a thing I was not fully aware of, as I usually face the arguments against free will which come from the experiments some neuroscientists did, I believe I can give two answers, depending on the severity of the problem:
First chance: the person possesses this gene, so inherits the tendency of killing, but he can keep it under control.
It reminds me of an answer I gave to Lightbringer some weeks ago.
Let's take the example of a man with a certain need for safety. You will agree with me it is nothing anywhere close to be a sin. Let's follow this man, and discover he decides to lift weights and practice martial arts in order to become able to defend himself better. This is not a sin either, is it? But what if this man, totally drove from his emotions, decides to preventively suppress those he feels like a threat in order to feel more safe. This is definitely a sin.
Now, I believe God gives burdens to everyone, with the possibility to collapse under those burdens, or get strong enough to carry it without toiling that much. The stronger one starts, the heavier his burden will be. In this regard is enlightening the Parable of the Talents, I believe.
Second chance: The person is completely out of himself, out of control, and just feels an uncontrollable lust towards killing. He is a homicide maniac to all effects. So no, he definitely has no free will.
How does Christianity deal with him? Let's remember that such people were there in the periods in which Bible was written, too. Actually, it's clear they won't be condemned because of the things they did without will. Plus, we can say there are people who are there not to have free will, but for being a warning for those who have.
Well, my grandmother never managed to taught me Christian faith, I always rejected what she said. I discovered faith quite a lot of time later
Last edited:
in islam their is a principe that says : the purpose of the human life on earth is that the person is tested during the lifetime.
we believe that everyone on earth is burdened, like deadlift says, with different burdens. it can be a crime gene that make people more violent or a cancer gene that will make the person live a shorter life or a bad environement that will make psychological damage or whatever.
but god gives also to every person the means to fight the burden and to overcome it. and that is the purpose of free will and the definition of human. he overcomes huge burdens with free will. that is a reason for why in islam god makes all the angels and satan (in islam a Jin/demon that did so good that god elevated him to live with the angels) bow to adam.
from my personal perspective, in my life I had many chances to overcome my burdens, I can't deny that, even if now I'm not a good believer, if I fail in the test I certainly can't say in my defence to god, that didn't get from him the means to overcome my burdens. I just can't say that to him, as I've had a lot of chances that I screw up. and I keep getting many.
what I want to say is that you can't generalise because every life is unique and that god follows every life.
lastly, the Quran says that : god doesn't burden a person more than he can bear / more than his capacity. and also that a person isn't judged for something beyond her capacity.
and also god, while affirming that the good people will enter paradise, also says A LOT that he does whatever he wants, and that he is the only judge. for example an individual who have spent all of his life apparently to us living a pious life, can fail before god. it is clear for every muslim that while you should work for your test, you don't win by you capacity but only through gods grace, you don't win paradise no. you just beg for it and god gives if he wants.
for the crime statistics, If I understood it shows that people with crime gene do more crime. but that doesn't kill them. what I want to say if for example if I stole, or killed or whatever while I'm considered as a criminal in the statistics, I'm still alive and breathing so god is still giving me a chance to repent.
I hope that me and deadlift have answered your question.
Last edited:
Believing that the universe made itself is like believing these structures can make themselves without human intervention.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You should take this post and send it to some of our best scientific minds, I mean after this post how can they even argue about how we came to be.
You'll go down in history as the man that pointed humanity to the answer we've all been looking for.
Your Creepy Stalker
Active member
Awards
This thread is still here? Most religious threads get locked after a few hundred posts for whatever reason.
HashiraMadara
Active member
That is because there is no bashing...
OTT: This Dannie is still answering in loops.
This is Dannie's answers to my questions:
for(int consciousness = "unknown"; consciousness != religion; consciousness += "denial")
{
answers = Dannie.atheism(denial);
break = never;
}
The above loop is infinite as long as he never gives us a clear answer :|
- Status