Religion

[Itachi Minato]

If you ever read bible or kuran completely you can find many phrases that order to destroy other religions. bible tells to conquer the whole world. so british people destroy our countries. but i,m not hate them. i only have sympathy to them . in my religion those who do bad work shall pray the price by karma.

I would like some examples of this in the Quran. OT: I completely agree. As far as im concerned if you can respectfully put forth your argument then you will gain more respect than from anything you have said. As for this war argument that religions cause wars , if everybody was atheist you think wars wouldnt happen?

 

[Shin Kaito]

Shush! There is always a mad scientist trying to take over the world and blowing things up. source: every third TV show/comic/anime. U_U

I want to make machines that will destroy the world and make humans their slave.... Yea that's how i imagine the future to be. MUHAHAHA!
___________

Btw i am religious and i believe god exists.

 

[Douryoku]

I am sure it does, it sounds like you put too much faith in humankind and the image most humans have developed of God. We are capable of alot, but not of the scale of understanding in which is needed to get something like that. Science helps us understand the complexity of the world, that complexity is there in a first place because of....what random chance? Why havent we experienced another big bang in the last billion years? Why haven't we experienced evolution in some aspect happening before our eyes? If it does happen, and its not just adapting to the world around us instead, why can't God be the driving force behind that? Why can't we find that one, just one skull or bone that proves the link between monkeys and humans? If God doesn't exist, then why can we not completely prove it? Does it make sense for humans to have so called free will but for God to intervene and save human life? Why is it God's responsibility to make sure each individual on earth survives or makes good decisions when we have free will to do so? It's easy to not believe in God, thats the easy way out. Its also easy to believe in a God that does make all the decisions for you and controls all aspects of the world...that way humankind conveniently has an excuse when shit goes wrong in their life. Tell me, if you drive drunk..get in a accident and kill a person...is that God's fault? Or your fault for getting in the car when you know drinking and driving can do harm? know for the sake of it we can say you didn't realize drunk driving would cause an accident but does that mean God should have appeared in front of you and warned you before you got behind the wheel? No, otherwise, how would you accurately learn what something like drinking and driving could do to yourself or others without being exposed to that knowledge in the first place?

The God that's being debated about on this thread is usually just a God limited in power to the perception of the individuals who have been exposed to only one method or two of thinking about his existence or possibilities aka religious man made God. Yes, i believe the God most have come to known in our religious texts, the vast majority of them, is proof of nothing more than we are taking things at face value instead of seeing the big picture. Even with proof the King James Bible was altered by the King himself, Christians (not all) still believe everything in that book to be God's exact word? Even when it's full of the contradictions it has? How can you call yourself a Christian and believe despite God saying in his book he loves all his children and creation, he would throw gay people into hell? How can you wear jewelry and have *** before marriage and stuff without feeling extreme guilt? Its because subconsciously we know God wouldn't really damn us for stupid shit like that.

Are you saying there isnt a creation, birth, existence, and death cycle? Is it not true that every human was concieved, birthed either dead or alive, existed for those who were alive, and eventually dead and decomposed back into the earth to create nutrients in which helped give birth to other life like plants or animals? This cycle repeats itself and has repeated itself for as long as we can measure existence. So...earth was just here? by that logic? and these cycles only hold true for everything else in existence, but not for their being an earth creator? Things as big as galaxies and stars have a creation, birth, life, death process that repeats and so does the bacteria living on your body now. Why would earth be the only exception? Or the big bang? You could argue that energy spontaniously created the gases needed for the big bang, but then what created that energy? something was creating that energy. Even if its just energy behind the scenes, wouldn't that technically be God? God is provided a push for life, whether he be an alien, energy, human, plant, cat, gas, star, nothing (because nothing is something still) There is argument logically for a God.

On a different note, all these people that cry proof this proof that for God....why isn't the way the world works acceptable proof? Do you really believe every single complexity that exists is the result of spontaneous chance? I know science can explain how the world works, but it can't explain why God cannot be behind that science, especially when we do not even understand really what God is or cannot prove he does or doesn't exist? How are we supposed to scientifically prove somethings existence that is beyond human comprehension, that cannot be explained by definitive proof? Im really just curious, i find the whole world and every pattern of existence within it more than enough proof to believe this is not all just a result of chance.

Sorry this is long, and no offense is intended. Just asking questions to help further my understanding of the opposite spectrum, because you cannot ever claim to know something is true without understanding all aspects first. I have been in these shoes before, but that doesn't mean i still can't learn stuff.

Why can't we see evolution happening? Because it takes millions of years to occur. We cannot 'see' it in the same respect that we can see, say, the combustion of something, but via fossils we can see changes, and somebody like Richard Dawkins who is a professor of Darwinian (I think) evolution, and he cites many such examples; he is also a professor at Oxford, one of the finest institutions in the world, he is very reliable.

The Big Bang theory is strong evidence for how the universe came to be. We do not need 'god'.

Yes, it can be so. If you consider the universe Mathematically, given how incomprehensibly vast it is, and how old the universe is, it makes sense that at one point something conveniently occurred for life to flourish. It still occurs today; various animals arbitrarily mutate to develop beneficial characteristics for surviving a given environment. If this kind of arbitrary chance occurs and is able to be witnessed, then why can it not apply for the universe?

I'll give you an interesting example; the ratio, Pi, is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter; it's value is approximately 22 divided by 7. Now, consider this:

You must be registered for see links

. An integral, natural thing such as Pi can be calculated using such an arbitrary approach. From this, it is apparent that arbitrary things can result in complex things. I don't know why you can't accept this, it's as though it is more comforting for you to feel there is a supreme, almost aesthetic harmony between things that exist, and if there isn't then life is pointless and you feel lugubrious about it; I care about the truth, not that which will serve to make me jubilant.

No problem.​

​

 

[Wolfus]

Religious ppl get attention and called stupid on the Internet because
They start to preach their religion..Some religions preach to kill,murder and crucify or ppl have read abt the bad things that religions had done to theirs or their ppl and naturally others get irritated by it
Compare some sentences in their religius book to some scientific theory and say it matches to it and it was written in that book thousands of years ago blah blah..
Repeatedly saying something scientifc is untrue or because it against their religion or it tells so
In b/w Have you ever seen a scientist creating an extrimist group or strapping bomb on him self and blowing shit up because other didnt agreed to him

That's exactly the problem I'm talking about. You say as if all religious people did that. Did you even bother to reap the OP? I fully covered everything you said. The muderers, the "pushing religion into people's throat". This is all made by fanatics, people who let their belief blind themselves towards logic.
However, saying that all religious people are like that is a mistake. Many religious people aren't fanatics, they're just regular people with a belief. They don't let it blind them. But I explained this way better in the OP.

Oh, and "From Wikipedia:

Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the installment of the Revolutionary Calendar on 24 October. Against Robespierre's concepts of Deism and Virtue, Hébert's (and Chaumette's) atheist movement initiated a religious campaign in order to dechristianize society. The program of dechristianisation waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation of clergy and the condemnation of many of them to death, the closing of churches, the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, the large scale destruction of religious monuments, the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education, forced marriages of the clergy and forced abjurement of their priesthood.

The enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight. The climax was reached with the celebration of the Goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral on November 10. Because dissent was now regarded as counterrevolutionary, extremist enragés such as Hébert and moderate Montagnard indulgents such as Danton were guillotined in the spring of 1794. On June 7 Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended that the Convention acknowledge the existence of God. On the next day, the worship of the deistic Supreme Being was inaugurated as an official aspect of the Revolution. Compared with Hébert's somewhat popular festivals, this austere new religion of Virtue was received with signs of hostility by an amazed Parisian public."

Better take a look at this. Atheists also killed religious people because they were religious. So, following this logic of blaming an entire group because of what some fanatics did, I might as well say that atheists and religious peopls should die in order to pay for that. Basically, we'll barely have anyone left in the planet.

 

[Wabbit]

That's exactly the problem I'm talking about. You say as if all religious people did that. Did you even bother to reap the OP? I fully covered everything you said. The muderers, the "pushing religion into people's throat". This is all made by fanatics, people who let their belief blind themselves towards logic.
However, saying that all religious people are like that is a mistake. Many religious people aren't fanatics, they're just regular people with a belief. They don't let it blind them. But I explained this way better in the OP.

Oh, and "From Wikipedia:

Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the installment of the Revolutionary Calendar on 24 October. Against Robespierre's concepts of Deism and Virtue, Hébert's (and Chaumette's) atheist movement initiated a religious campaign in order to dechristianize society. The program of dechristianisation waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation of clergy and the condemnation of many of them to death, the closing of churches, the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, the large scale destruction of religious monuments, the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education, forced marriages of the clergy and forced abjurement of their priesthood.

The enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight. The climax was reached with the celebration of the Goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral on November 10. Because dissent was now regarded as counterrevolutionary, extremist enragés such as Hébert and moderate Montagnard indulgents such as Danton were guillotined in the spring of 1794. On June 7 Robespierre, who had previously condemned the Cult of Reason, advocated a new state religion and recommended that the Convention acknowledge the existence of God. On the next day, the worship of the deistic Supreme Being was inaugurated as an official aspect of the Revolution. Compared with Hébert's somewhat popular festivals, this austere new religion of Virtue was received with signs of hostility by an amazed Parisian public."

Better take a look at this. Atheists also killed religious people because they were religious. So, following this logic of blaming an entire group because of what some fanatics did, I might as well say that atheists and religious peopls should die in order to pay for that. Basically, we'll barely have anyone left in the planet.

Okay

Shush! There is always a mad scientist trying to take over the world and blowing things up. source: every third TV show/comic/anime. U_U

and there is always a good scientist accidently creating a superhero who defeats that evil scientist

 

[Don Drama]

nice thread.. there are so many religions in the world.. but for me only 2 religions are considered valid.. Islam and Christianity. Both don't worship cows.

 

[Shin Kaito]

nice thread.. there are so many religions in the world.. but for me only 2 religions are considered valid.. Islam and Christianity. Both don't worship cows.

well i can tell you a very valid reasons as for why our ancestors started to worship cows. But that will be a waste of both my time and energy since you think you already know everything.

 

[Jack Spicer]

nice thread.. there are so many religions in the world.. but for me only 2 religions are considered valid.. Islam and Christianity. Both don't worship cows.

If you don't worship Edgar, The Mad King will slay a thousand innocent lives and let your existence waste away in their bones.

You must be registered for see images

 

[FitzChivalry Farseer]

Freedom of speed . . .

 

[TheMaTrix]

Didn't read lol

 

[YowYan]

well i can tell you a very valid reasons as for why our ancestors started to worship cows. But that will be a waste of both my time and energy since you think you already know everything.

Is it linked to the astronomical age of Taurus?

 

[HadouKage]

Nice thread dude, even though we don't see eye to eye on a lot, I agree with this thread. However, nothing will change because each side is going to think they are right

 

[Wolfus]

Nice thread dude, even though we don't see eye to eye on a lot, I agree with this thread. However, nothing will change because each side is going to think they are right

Yeah, indeed. Man, I just wish I could, Idk, show people how wrong what they're doing is, you know? Fighting, hating, etc. What if this leads into a big ass war? I just wish that I could help. I'm doing my best, but it's not even close to be enough.

 

[Avani]

well i can tell you a very valid reasons as for why our ancestors started to worship cows. But that will be a waste of both my time and energy since you think you already know everything.

Lol. People go out of their way to be rude. smh

Is it linked to the astronomical age of Taurus?

Nah. Cow is not exactly "worshiped" as a deity. It's revered and respected. Though it some times is depicted as deemed deity status. And bull is associated with Lord Pashupati, a form of Shiva. Probably in the village economy where it was a symbol of wealth was one of the reasons. In Vedic age it was not that much inviolable even as today. And there are various small but culturally important reasons for it.

For one - Hinduism is based on the concept of omnipresence of the Divine and the presence of a soul in all living beings/creatures.

Next, Indians relied heavily on it for dairy products and for tilling the fields, and on cow dung as a source of fuel and fertilizer. With the advent of Buddhism vegetarianism became more and more popular. And cow was a household cattle which due to it's usefulness and closeness was also gained a pet status in a way.

Most importantly people used it's milk and that gave it almost a maternal status in a way. If I wasted even a little bit of milk as a child, my mother would immediately remind me to never throw it away or let it get spoiled as when using milk milk means we were already taking away meal meant for another kid( she meant calf).

With advent of Buddhism vegetarianism became more popular and due to combined reasons cow gained more and more inviolable status. In the most basic way it was eating or harming an animal which has been so beneficial and useful to you.

 

[Don Drama]

All religion has 1 thing in common.. it promotes ***.

Classic examples are as follows:

1.) Old Testament of the Catholics will tell you "Go to the world and multiply". Masturbation is bad for it says "Don't spill your seeds on the ground".
2.) Male Muslims believe that they will be rewarded with 12 virgins for martyrdom.
3.) Virgin offering to Gods like Zues and Odin.

You fill in the blanks genius.

 

[Wolfus]

All religion has 1 thing in common.. it promotes ***.

Classic examples are as follows:

1.) Old Testament of the Catholics will tell you "Go to the world and multiply". Masturbation is bad for it says "Don't spill your seeds on the ground".
2.) Male Muslims believe that they will be rewarded with 12 virgins for martyrdom.
3.) Virgin offering to Gods like Zues and Odin.

You fill in the blanks genius.

I'm sorry, you mentioned 2 religions, and say all of them? Hum, but ok.
What's your point? How does that make every religious person dumb? How does that make plausible for religious people to have their rights taken away?