God

[Dennis_Mahon]

Blindeside:

If a religion has a significant number of events in its history that transgress the bounds of its own self-described morality, then people had better start questioning it.

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that a large number of people violate the rules of a moral system, it is the moral system that is at fault, not those who violate it? So, if a large number of people violate rules against murder, rape, and theft, it is those rules at fault, not the perpetrators?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador
Anyone else see the irony in this statement?

Again, allow me to clarify myself (for the 10 thousand times).

Qiz has already made a blanket condemnation of religion and religious people. So that part is already KNOWN. Henceforth, I was rebutting his statement based on this KNOWN fact. It is ignorant and arrogant for atheists to make blanket presumption about people who they do not know. I made no condemnation on atheists' way of life or belief, only a rebuttal to their presumptuous assumption regarding how religious people are. Which, was clearly stated by the atheists in this thread. So there is no irony in my statement. I suggest you reread the whole thread again.

The fact is many religious people are rational , strong willed and in no need of a crutch and they are as tolerant and open minded as anyone else, if not more so. Christianity preaches hate the sin but not the sinners. I myself are not that righteous. I am basically live and let live. Religion is not a big factor in my life. So when I read the typical comment from atheists, I tend to get annoyed. Who the hell are these people to tell me what I am and am not? So.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Blindside ....
To blame the flawed humans for being guilty of the bad things that were done in the name of the religion is a cop out. If fifteen of my martial arts students go out and start randomly beating people up and maiming them, I will be looked on as a poor teacher at the very least. Maybe I won't be found guilty in a court of law, but certainly in the eyes of the public. And the counter argument of "but the art is pure" is feeble at best.....

HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL

Well, lets put that martial art on trial then. Lets forbid people from learning that martial art then? Lets outlaw that martial art then?

Your logic is leaking big time, my friend.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Nate_Hoopes
Heres what i know about the whole religion thing... No one not one of us in the whole world can PROVE either side of the coin. However that being said, I dont believe in a god because one simply dosent make any sense to me, too far fetched, and i can equate all the bible stories or whatever you would like to call them as being simply stories of fairy tales.

That being said
I saw a comic a couple weeks ago, bizzaro to be more specific. I tired to find it but perhaps a description will do.

It showed two cave men running one carrying a spear, the other yells to him "No, Wait, first we have to invent religion to justify our actions.... Then we invent war."

Just something to think about.

This is no different than someone who has no clue what Kempo is, but simply states that "I don't understand anything about it. It makes no sense to me. Therefore it must be some rubbish." Brilliant huh?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by TLH3rdDan
wow! damn work lol i missed all this... well im not chiming in here for much but i think that one of the main points that someone brought up was missed back when this discussion... which is what does faith give you? why is faith important to your life?

p.s. this is just out of curiousity and not meant to single out any one person or religious sect

I would like to invite you to read these threads.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5525

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5458

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5440

Hopefully the real life stories of people can shed some light.

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

Johnathan:

HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL

While I agree that there is a serious hole in the logic of Blindside's argument, I must point out that your ad hominem attack upon upon his character is in poor taste. You cannot allow your emotions to direct your actions, no matter how justified. Forgive my bluntness, but there is a cardinal rule to debate: No one will care if you're right if you're an @$$hole about it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Let me put this arguement the way I see it...

Everyone has a belief..even if that belief is to believe nothing.

Everyone is currently using the belief system that is currently working for them, or seeking out one that will.

There is a ton of misinformation out there, and much of it has been mentioned in this thread.

The original intent of this thread was to just ask 'what do you believe in?'

It has evolved into theological debates, doctorine and more.


Go ahead and -discuss- things, but keep it civil and keep it friendly.

:asian:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon
Johnathan:

While I agree that there is a serious hole in the logic of Blindside's argument, I must point out that your ad hominem attack upon upon his character is in poor taste. You cannot allow your emotions to direct your actions, no matter how justified. Forgive my bluntness, but there is a cardinal rule to debate: No one will care if you're right if you're an @$$hole about it.

If you would kindly point out where I have attacked his character, I would appreciate that and I would apologize.

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

If you would kindly point out where I have attacked his character, I would appreciate that and I would apologize.

Upon reflection, I suppose that it is I that should apologize, and clarify: it is not so much as an attack upon his character, as it is the tone you take in your responses. By taunting your opponent, you turn the debate personal, turning it into a "me-against-you" situation, rather than an effort to ascertain the facts of the matter. A good adadge to remember in such situations is "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar".

What I am asking is that you take a moment to reign your anger, and to try and treat your opponent with some charity.

 

[TLH3rdDan]

hummm so faith basically gives you a sense of security a sense of there must be a reason for everything in life correct? why then do you need a reason for everything? is is not believable that somethings simply happen and have no real reason or motive behind them?

next topic... if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual?

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion? ussually trying to imposse that groups beliefs on another group... sorry for the spelling errors... in an after thought as im watching the horrors of american idol... maybe this whole discussion should be moved to its on thread?

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

hummm so faith basically gives you a sense of security a sense of there must be a reason for everything in life correct?

Well, that is hardly unique to religion; one of the basic assumptions of modern science is that all effects have a cause, which essentially means that there must be a reason X event occurs.

why then do you need a reason for everything? is is not believable that somethings simply happen and have no real reason or motive behind them?

Because that would mean that the universe is essentially chaotic, and that contradicts the observable data. Much of what occurs in the universe can be explained; the difference between religion and science is that religion generally ascribes the cause to an entity (or entities) outside the material universe, while science ascribes all causes to material forces.

next topic... if its true that god, alah, jesus... whatever you believe in exists in all things why do people feel the need to build churches and attend sermons and choose to accept one persons interpritation of something that should be interprited by each individual?

Well, first of all, why do you assume that religious beliefs are something that should be interpreted by each individual? Secondly, most of the organized religions around the world can point to their diety as having appointed an earthly authority to interpret and teach their moral and ethical rules.

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?

I don't suppose you could back that statement up with hard, statistical proof?

 

[TLH3rdDan]

so billy bob down the street got word from god 2000 years ago to preach to the masses? and that would explain everyone and their brother starting a church? hummm well cant give you exact deaths from the crusades i wasnt there... hummm aslo how about 9-11... the spanish inquisition... the salem witch trails... need i continue?? and incase you havent noticed yes most of things in nature and the universe are in chaos other wise it would be quite predictable and boring

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

so billy bob down the street got word from god 2000 years ago to preach to the masses? and that would explain everyone and their brother starting a church?

Well, I doubt "Billy Bob" down the street claims he was here 2000 years ago. But, for the sake of arguement- why not? If "billy Bob" claims that the source of his authority to preach lived and gave that mission to his followers 2000 years ago, why should invalidate his claim?

hummm well cant give you exact deaths from the crusades i wasnt there... hummm aslo how about 9-11... the spanish inquisition... the salem witch trails... need i continue??

Continue with what? You made the assertion:

also why is it if religions are not ultimately a bad thing... then why have most of the bloodiest wars and attrosities been commited in the name of religion?

Yet you now admit that you can't actually give proof to your assertion; why then, should we believe that the bloodiest wars and attrocities have been commited in the name of religion?

 

[Blindside]

HA! look at your own logic! If 15 of your students are screw up, you are ready to condemn your martial art then? LOL

No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

There is no clear cut difference between the Art and the Instructor to the outsider. Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.

My example was not a good one, but I differ in your argument that you can seperate the religion from the people who worship the religion.

 

[Blindside]

So, what you are saying, in essence, is that a large number of people violate the rules of a moral system, it is the moral system that is at fault, not those who violate it? So, if a large number of people violate rules against murder, rape, and theft, it is those rules at fault, not the perpetrators?

No, if a group of people who present a morality to the public and are then hypocritical enough to repeatedly violate that morality. Then I would expect people to question the institution that presents the morality and to investigate the morality itself.

If congress unanimously passed a resolution to ban alcohol, and it lasted for ten years. CNN finally breaks a story showing that congress was throwing friday night keggers for the entire duration, the public would question both the congress and the law.

This would be more of an argument against organized religion, than religion itself.

Lamont

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Blindside
No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

There is no clear cut difference between the Art and the Instructor to the outsider. Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.

My example was not a good one, but I differ in your argument that you can seperate the religion from the people who worship the religion.

What you fail to admit is that the art itself is not at fault. There is nothing wrong with the art itself. Whatever fault there is, lies in the people practicing and teaching it.

There IS distinction between you and the art. You are NOT the art. The art is NOT you.

The religion is NOT you. You are not the religion. The religion lives on with or without you. The art lives on with or without you.

IF you cannot accept this simple fact, then this is totally pointless. It becomes argumentative.

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

No, I'm willing to condemn myself. And to the general public it doesn't matter what the art is, because I was its representitive. If I am the only representive of the art would you send your child to study under me? I wouldn't because you would have a poor opinion of what I do.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the technical proficiency- the "truth"- of the art you teach. An opinion- no matter how seemingly justified-is not necessarily a truth by virtue of its existence.

Just as there is no clear cut difference between the word of god and the teachings of the (for example) Catholic Church. The two are inextricably linked, you can't transgress your own codes in the name of god, and then write it off as nothing due to human flaws.

I don't suppose you provide an example of this?

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Blindside
No, if a group of people who present a morality to the public and are then hypocritical enough to repeatedly violate that morality. Then I would expect people to question the institution that presents the morality and to investigate the morality itself.

If congress unanimously passed a resolution to ban alcohol, and it lasted for ten years. CNN finally breaks a story showing that congress was throwing friday night keggers for the entire duration, the public would question both the congress and the law.

This would be more of an argument against organized religion, than religion itself.

Again, you fail to separate the people (drunken congressmen) from the institution (congress) and the ideal (the law in this case). Clearly, it is the conduct of the congressmen that was the issue, not the institution itself, nor the law, in your example.

If you say there are clergymen who are scum and phonies and even criminals, I am not going to argue the contrary. There are undesirable elements within the institution, and even the institution itself needs reform in many areas. These are all human factors.

 

[TLH3rdDan]

:shrug: ok like i said i cant give you an exact death toll... sorry i dont keep track of those figures... so im assuming by your post that you believe those events happened for reasons other than religion? or perhaps no one died in them? or perhaps they were not cruel or did not attempt to inforce religion upon someone who did not believe in that religion? next so there really is no need to understand a religious text simply wanting to go out and preach is enough? so that would put us back to literal translations of say and eye for an eye.... or any other countless passages... but thats all ok right? and are you saying that the common man is not capable of understanding the bible? thats what it seems you are saying by saying that god apointed people to preach it... i thought the word of god was for everyone not just a privaliged few to translate the way they wish and feed to the masses? hummm yeah that sounds like a good idea hummm that brings david karesh to mind... thats right he was the new mesiah right??? but hey god told him he was... so he must have been right... ohhh well i guess you win on that one... hummm now as far as this whole debate is going your not going to change your views and im not going to change mine... so i guess we will have to agree to disagree

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Have you been drinking? That is just like my college roomate used to talk when he drank too much.