Why can't religious people lighten up a bit? A polite rant

[it290]

Well, classical Buddhism really isn't what most would define as a religion per se- it's more of a general philosophy. Of course things change over the years as they spread to different regions and peoples, and there are variants of Buddhism with many rituals and forms of idol worship, but these are (IMO) quite contrary to the original intent.

[raiden]

buddhism also isn´t that easy to put into practice. Say for example, you come home and see your apartment burned down, a true buddhist would say something like "well, at least I got rid of my attachment to things this way".

[Rob]

buddhism also isn´t that easy to put into practice. Say for example, you come home and see your apartment burned down, a true buddhist would say something like "well, at least I got rid of my attachment to things this way".

I had a dream about a week ago where I lost all of my stuff (in an explosion!) and this was my reaction. I'm a closet buddhist.

[PaCrappa]

buddhism also isn´t that easy to put into practice. Say for example, you come home and see your apartment burned down, a true buddhist would say something like "well, at least I got rid of my attachment to things this way".

I had a dream about a week ago where I lost all of my stuff (in an explosion!) and this was my reaction. I'm a closet buddhist.

+1 Odd coincidence. And because of that dream, I almost (big almost here) wished it would happen yesterday. Sometimes even the awesome stuff just weighs you down.

Also, there are plentay of creepy forms of Buddhism out there. We just don't live in rural Southeast Asia so we're not exposed. Take all the ways that Christianity can go bad (I said "go bad" not "is bad" so you sensitive types can just piss off in advance) and all of the various idol worshippin flavors of Buddhism can and sometimes do go the same way.

Pa

[Leeram]

buddhism also isn´t that easy to put into practice. Say for example, you come home and see your apartment burned down, a true buddhist would say something like "well, at least I got rid of my attachment to things this way".

I had a dream about a week ago where I lost all of my stuff (in an explosion!) and this was my reaction. I'm a closet buddhist.

+1 Odd coincidence. And because of that dream, I almost (big almost here) wished it would happen yesterday. Sometimes even the awesome stuff just weighs you down.

Also, there are plentay of creepy forms of Buddhism out there. We just don't live in rural Southeast Asia so we're not exposed. Take all the ways that Christianity can go bad (I said "go bad" not "is bad" so you sensitive types can just piss off in advance) and all of the various idol worshippin flavors of Buddhism can and sometimes do go the same way.

Pa

Christianity is a creepy form of Budhism, Jesus was the Deli Lama, I thought everyone knew that. That's why astrologers from the east came to see him, and also why he disapeared to "Egypt" for most of his life, and why a fair few things he taught are almost word for word from Budhist teachings.

I think people are missing the point a little somehow. It's not really about believeing or not believing, it's about interpreting what is taught and that is why so many Muslims seem "mad" to western eyes. We are used to slagging off Christianitly and Christians not doing anything about it. However we did have blashpemy laws until very recently, and not too long ago you would have got yourself hung for it, that's the same thing.

Most Muslims interpret from their religion that if you draw or derise some parts of their religion then you must be killed. That is because they interpret that God commands them to do that, so they must do it, otherwise they go against the word of God.

They are not mad, or extremist or fundamentalist, they are just doing what they feel is right. Remember that human life has different values in different societies. Us atheists might feel that it's all stupid, but the people who drew those cartoons should have known better, they have insulted many people, of which some at least are going to want to kill them.

Now let's imagine that an Arsenal fan burned a Manchester United flag in front of a load of Man United fans. Even if he is in Arsenal. Those Man U. fans are going to all be insulted, some will want to kick the shit out of him, and some of them will probably do it. Just like the people that drew those cartoons the burner should have known better. And all us football atheists will just think "what a bunch of f**cking idiots".

Cheers

Leeram

[Nemo]

Religious ideals come from society, not the other way around. Religion is simply a way to easily state, enforce, and pass down these ideals. But make no mistake, religion says "don't kill each other" because society said it first. And society said it first because humans are fundamentally a social species... we want to be together instinctively, and for it to work at all there needs to be order.

Any sort of social order outside of the "social contract" (which basically says, "I won't hurt you because I don't want you to hurt me" was established out of religious fundamentals. These beliefs transcend everything else, so it's only logical that people would form civilizations in accordance with it. The U.S., whose foundation was adopted from England, is firmly rooted in Christian ethics. I also find it odd that you believe what you said when most atheists I encounter seem to subscribe to Darwinism, which basically contradicts every thing you said.

Oh, please, go ahead.

It's apparent you were raised around Catholicism, but due to the fact that the religion rejects homosexual acts, and since you're a homosexual (this is by his own admittance, I'm no trying to be funny) you rejected the religion and now have a negative attitude towards all religion. You believe religion is flawed for fact that if God exists why would he want to discriminate against his own creation, so you choose to live life with a humanist attitude.

"Belief" doesn't imply blind faith.

My faith isn't blind, I have countless reasons for believing how I do, and God is as more real to me than any science. But that is the thing about spritituality, it's a personal relationship and it can't simply be replicated or "proven" by the scienctific means.

I'd also like to ask if you came up with your religion on your own, or if it was taught to you, inspired by books and pastors and friends and family. Religion is just as much about "accepting information" as anything, which is why millions of people all follow the same ones instead of every person having their own unique deity.

It's funny because I'm sure a lot of assumptions have been made about what I believe, but I actually don't subscribe to any religion. I'm a Christian, but that isn't a religion in the traditional sense of the word, it's a life-style which means I live Christ-like. My faith also has influences from a number of religions, because the reality is multiple religions have some truth to them and not one has all the answers. So faith for me isn't about simply accpeting a doctrine, it's about truly understanding and living what I'm believing.

Again, the entire basis of what you're saying is that without religion, humans are fundamentally selfish and incapable of seeing consequences for their actions. I'd say you have a pretty dismal view of humanity. Personally, I don't kill people or steal things because I'm fully capable of empathy for fellow humans, and even if I wasn't I'd still be aware of what would happen to me if I did. Religion doesn't play a part.

People are ego-centric by nature, and when they only believe in self, this selfishness is taken to the extreme. You clearly have a humanist approach towards life, which a lot religions actually have too (jnsofar as human life is respected), but the difference is, with your position, you believe there is nothing greater than humanity which leads back to selfishness. Humanists are constantly chasing some paradoxical ideal of what perfect society is, and in the long run end up hurting people just as much as they help them.

[sethsez]

It's apparent you were raised around Catholicism, but due to the fact that the religion rejects homosexual acts, and since you're a homosexual (this is by his own admittance, I'm no trying to be funny) you rejected the religion and now have a negative attitude towards all religion. You believe religion is flawed for fact that if God exists why would he want to discriminate against his own creation, so you choose to live life with a humanist attitude.

The only part you got right is that I'm gay.

I was raised in a primarilly Protestant community, my parents are atheists who are willing to let me choose my own religion (they took me to church for months because I wanted to know more about Christianity and I still have the bible I bought during that period), and I don't believe in God because nobody has ever given me a convincing reason to. I don't subscribe to the "if I don't like it then it must not be real" school of thought... if you gave me proof of God's existence then I'd believe it, whether he hates gays or not. However, as of yet I've seen no more proof for God's existence than I have for the Greek pantheon, Hindu deities, or Scientology. So, can you give me a reason for believing in Christianity above any of those? If not, then tell me why I should believe it above those anyway.

And before you say "personal experiences" or "seeing the light" or whatever else, keep in mind that every religion is full of people who've had these kind of experiences, and they can't all be right.

People are ego-centric by nature, and when they only believe in self, this selfishness is taken to the extreme. You clearly have a humanist approach towards life, which a lot religions actually have too (jnsofar as human life is respected), but the difference is, with your position, you believe there is nothing greater than humanity which leads back to selfishness. Humanists are constantly chasing some paradoxical ideal of what perfect society is, and in the long run end up hurting people just as much as they help them.

I don't believe there's nothing "greater" than humanity because that's a useless description. It implies some gigantic piechart of the cosmos that ranks everything.

I do believe that overall, there's nothing more important to humanity than humanity. I do not, however, believe this makes us the greatest things in the universe because our view of ourselves only matters to ourselves. To an alien race three galaxies over, humanity caring about humanity means exactly dick. To a species of coniferous trees, the mere concept of "importance" doesn't exist, so our self-importance again means dick. As long as sharks have things to eat and places to swim, abortion rights couldn't possibly have less impact on them. The earth's mantle will continue to exist and function long after we're gone, and it certainly doesn't give a shit about us, with the whole "not being alive" thing it has going.

In a way, it's like people who talk about "nature's intentions." Well, "nature" doesn't have a conciousness. Things happen, and they certainly happen in a relatively predictable way, but this doesn't mean there's anything resembling intentions. It's humanizing something that isn't remotely human for the sake of easier understanding, but really shouldn't be taken literally.

To sum up: humanity isn't the greatest thing in the universe, it isn't the least important thing in the universe, and it isn't anything in between, because the universe doesn't keep score. We're just another thing that exists. Since I'm a human my primary concern is human affairs, but don't confuse that with a belief that human affairs are the most important thing in existence.

[Rob]

To sum up: humanity isn't the greatest thing in the universe, it isn't the least important thing in the universe, and it isn't anything in between, because the universe doesn't keep score. We're just another thing that exists. Since I'm a human my primary concern is human affairs, but don't confuse that with a belief that human affairs are the most important thing in existence.

Thanks for making sense.

[sethsez]

To sum up: humanity isn't the greatest thing in the universe, it isn't the least important thing in the universe, and it isn't anything in between, because the universe doesn't keep score. We're just another thing that exists. Since I'm a human my primary concern is human affairs, but don't confuse that with a belief that human affairs are the most important thing in existence.

Thanks for making sense.

np

The general impression I get is that Christians see God as the most important thing in the universe, and since humanity is created in God's image, humanity is the second most important thing. Now, since atheists don't believe in God, Christians seem to think that means we just knock him off the top and bump everything up one level, landing us the #1 spot.

I can see how they get to that conclusion. I don't blame them for it. However, it's wrong, and doesn't actually represent how atheists think.

[it290]

I also find it odd that you believe what you said when most atheists I encounter seem to subscribe to Darwinism, which basically contradicts every thing you said.

Can you clarify this point, please? I fail to see the contradiction.

[sethsez]

I think he's talking about social Darwinism, which isn't something most atheists believe (and which ignores the fact that humans evolved to be a social species in the first place). The whole "evolution means we're all on our own in direct competition with each other" thing is a load of bullshit.

[CMoon]

I also find it odd that you believe what you said when most atheists I encounter seem to subscribe to Darwinism, which basically contradicts every thing you said.

Arrghhh! I found a long time ago that people who use 'darwinism' instead of 'evolutionary theory' or 'biological evolution', etc. already have a particular agenda or don't understand there is 150 years of science after Darwin. Anyway, although probably more atheists and agnostics buy into evolution per capita than christians, it probably only holds true in the US and a few other backwards places where evolution is actually taken as a threat to religion. I think once the threat is removed and that people who don't buy into evolutionary theory understand that people who do aren't going to show up in the middle of night with burning crosses or whatever, this whole issue dissappears. Damn, people thrive on contraversy!!

I think (for most people) the differences between christian and atheiest is actually fairly minor. (Shockingly) most non-religious folk also believe in values, and some sense of human goodness. Though they may not use words like 'sin', their sense of right and wrong is about the same. I can't think of many athiests and agnostics who disagree with the ten commandments and their importance in regards to the foundation of society.

The problems are the extremists (on both sides) who feel they are fighting some kind of war! There are of course religious zealeots who feel they are battling for everyone's soul and are willing to do whatever it takes to beat the devil! And of course, atheist extremists who are battling the big mind-fuck of superstition that is keeping us from true peace and intellectual ascendency!!!

For all us slackers in the middle (thats 99% of everyone out there), we can figure out how to get along. I'm not threatening anyone's religion when I teach evolution, anymore than your church is threatening my free-thinking lifestyle. I figure unless your belief is making you blow other people up or supports drilling oil in Alaska we're all set

[professor ganson]

To sum up: humanity isn't the greatest thing in the universe, it isn't the least important thing in the universe, and it isn't anything in between, because the universe doesn't keep score. We're just another thing that exists. Since I'm a human my primary concern is human affairs, but don't confuse that with a belief that human affairs are the most important thing in existence.

I think you and I have a similar take on things. Our most fundamental aims/desires and beliefs are not a product of our reason/rationality, but are a product of other aspects of our human constitution, the way we are put together. This is an idea that goes back to Scottish philosopher David Hume, that there is no rational basis for our concerns in life-- what we take to be important.

Take our desire for our own comfort. We humans, because of how we are constituted, care about being comfortable. This is a rather fundamental aim-- we do many things to secure comfort, and it seems that at least in many cases we do not secure comfort for the sake of some further end. But look: there could be creatures, say, Martians, just as rational as we are who care nothing about their comfort. Their comfort is entirely unimportant to them. And yet suppose that they reason both deductively and inductively in a flawless manner, better than our most able logicians, mathematicians, and scientists. I can make sense of such a possibility, and it suggests to me that the importance we place in our own comfort has no rational basis-- it is just a product of our specifically human constitution.

I think that this is true of all of our most fundamental aims/desires: they are not grounded in our reason, but in other aspects of our contingent human nature.

I also think this way about many of our most fundamental beliefs, like our belief that there is a mind-independent world (a world that exists even when we are not perceiving it).

I also think this way about our aesthetic judgments. Because of how we humans are made, there is a great deal of agreement that Shakespeare is better than Danielle Steele. However, should we encounter wholly rational creatures who responded in exactly the opposite way (because of their constitution), we would ultimately be unable to persuade these rational creatures of the correctness of our view. And this is because aesthetic judgments are largely grounded in aspects of our constitution distinct from our capacity for reasoning.

When we look at things this way, it suggests that there is no fact of the matter about what is REALLY important/matters or what is REALLY beautiful. There is just what matters to creatures like us, what is beautiful to creatures like us. (On the other hand, it seems to me that there really is a fact of the matter about whether there is an external world.)

[it290]

I can't think of many athiests and agnostics who disagree with the ten commandments and their importance in regards to the foundation of society.

I disagree with a few of them, Nos. 1-4 for example.

[Randorama]

I still think that we atheists should found some sort of organization bent to impose rationality and good sense with a BADASS CLUB, or some WMD. It would rock: instead of the usual "sacred book"-thumpers who preach purity and then entertain dead donkeys , we should go around imposing (with bad-ass,final fight-like violence) a better society for all, in which everyone would like rank in shmups, dress metrosexual and worship long drinks made with Martini as the main ingredient.Said that, i'm off to get a Manhattan at my favourite lounge bar

EDIT: I forgot, last thursday my colleagues had this brilliant idea to hide my stuff so i should have got scared...i swear, i actually said " oh, my stuff is gone, that's better, the less Earthly possessions i have to worry about, the better", and then they gave them back to me, damn

[dave4shmups]

I had a dream about a week ago where I lost all of my stuff (in an explosion!) and this was my reaction. I'm a closet buddhist.

+1 Odd coincidence. And because of that dream, I almost (big almost here) wished it would happen yesterday. Sometimes even the awesome stuff just weighs you down.

Also, there are plentay of creepy forms of Buddhism out there. We just don't live in rural Southeast Asia so we're not exposed. Take all the ways that Christianity can go bad (I said "go bad" not "is bad" so you sensitive types can just piss off in advance) and all of the various idol worshippin flavors of Buddhism can and sometimes do go the same way.

Pa

Christianity is a creepy form of Budhism, Jesus was the Deli Lama, I thought everyone knew that. That's why astrologers from the east came to see him, and also why he disapeared to "Egypt" for most of his life, and why a fair few things he taught are almost word for word from Budhist teachings.

I think people are missing the point a little somehow. It's not really about believeing or not believing, it's about interpreting what is taught and that is why so many Muslims seem "mad" to western eyes. We are used to slagging off Christianitly and Christians not doing anything about it. However we did have blashpemy laws until very recently, and not too long ago you would have got yourself hung for it, that's the same thing.

Most Muslims interpret from their religion that if you draw or derise some parts of their religion then you must be killed. That is because they interpret that God commands them to do that, so they must do it, otherwise they go against the word of God.

They are not mad, or extremist or fundamentalist, they are just doing what they feel is right. Remember that human life has different values in different societies. Us atheists might feel that it's all stupid, but the people who drew those cartoons should have known better, they have insulted many people, of which some at least are going to want to kill them.

Now let's imagine that an Arsenal fan burned a Manchester United flag in front of a load of Man United fans. Even if he is in Arsenal. Those Man U. fans are going to all be insulted, some will want to kick the shit out of him, and some of them will probably do it. Just like the people that drew those cartoons the burner should have known better. And all us football atheists will just think "what a bunch of f**cking idiots".

Cheers

Leeram

Buddhism has nothing to do with Christianity. Buddhism teaches that you can achieve peace through your own self, Christianity teaches that spiritual peace only comes through a right relationship with God. Buddhism teaches that all desires are evil; Christianity teaches that that there are both good and evil desires. Buddhism teaches karma; Christianity teaches that the only way to an after-life with God is through the acceptance of the grace offered through the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

@it290, AFIK, Theravada Buddhism teaches the belief that Buddha is God.

I think that most of the negative images people have of belief systems, whether Christianity, Islam, etc, has mainly to do with the fact that the media, all over the world, show the extremists: they show Muslim extremist rally's, they quote Pat Robertson, and then try and lump every American Christian in with him; they show that clown pastor from Kansas who preaches the lie that God hates gays, etc.

The reality is much different; most American Christians do believe that homosexuality is a sin, but most do not hate gays. Again, most Muslims are not extremists, and abhor acts of terror that are ostensably commited in the name of Islam.

[jp]

I don't think its religion itself thats the problem... its the dickweeds who take the words of their religion and twist them into something completely different.

I'm Christian, I believe in Jesus, I believe he was the template for which God wanted all people to follow so people wouldn't suck so bad. And I think over half of the Christians on this planet don't realize that and are too busy digging up stuff from the Old Testament and what not, which once Jesus came on the scene, became outdated.

Like I said, they pick and choose. Muslims do it, Buddhists do it, wicca do it, every religion has its morons that don't grasp the whole picture. Sadly, its these morons that always make the most noise and become the representation for religion.


As for atheism vs. Christianity, this is how I look at it:
If I'm wrong, then I die and there is nothing. I lived a decent life and for all intents and purposes, was a fairly moral person who didn't fuck a lot of people over and blah blah.

If I'm right, then... atheists go to hell and are tortured forever and ever. Well, pending on what you believe. Personally, I like one sect of Christianity's belief that those people just cease to exist, as opposed to being punished for believing in something they could not logically come to believe. But if logic was involved, it wouldn't faith, and therefore pointless.

But I digress. Basically, if I'm wrong, I lose nothing and live a good life in "ignorance". If I'm right and decide to be an "I R TEH SMARTER THAN J00!" atheist, then I get tortured forever.

Personally, I don't like the heaven/hell aspect, and I just think Jesus had good ideas and was God's example of how to live. And I'll just stick to that.

[sethsez]

As for atheism vs. Christianity, this is how I look at it:
If I'm wrong, then I die and there is nothing. I lived a decent life and for all intents and purposes, was a fairly moral person who didn't fuck a lot of people over and blah blah.

If I'm right, then... atheists go to hell and are tortured forever and ever. Well, pending on what you believe. Personally, I like one sect of Christianity's belief that those people just cease to exist, as opposed to being punished for believing in something they could not logically come to believe. But if logic was involved, it wouldn't faith, and therefore pointless.

But I digress. Basically, if I'm wrong, I lose nothing and live a good life in "ignorance". If I'm right and decide to be an "I R TEH SMARTER THAN J00!" atheist, then I get tortured forever.

Personally, I don't like the heaven/hell aspect, and I just think Jesus had good ideas and was God's example of how to live. And I'll just stick to that.

I've heard this before, and here's my reaction (not specifically to you since you said you don't buy into it anyway):

1) Assuming I were to eventually take up a religion, it's still not an "atheism versus Christianity" deal. Believing in God might very well get you reincarnated as a slug for the next round, or perhaps land you in trouble with any of the other hundreds of deities mankand has managed to worship over the centuries (and the thousands we haven't thought of yet). An atheist isn't just "not a Christian."

2) I can't imagine that a God who cares so intensely about people worshipping him would be pleased about his worshippers having such a pragmatic reason for doing so. Are there so many Christians who just view believing in an ultimate creator as their afterlife insurance poilicy? If it somehow lands you a spot in heaven at all, I'd imagine it'd be next to both a stairwell and an old ice machine.

[magnum opus]

As for atheism vs. Christianity, this is how I look at it:
If I'm wrong, then I die and there is nothing. I lived a decent life and for all intents and purposes, was a fairly moral person who didn't fuck a lot of people over and blah blah.

If I'm right, then... atheists go to hell and are tortured forever and ever. Well, pending on what you believe. Personally, I like one sect of Christianity's belief that those people just cease to exist, as opposed to being punished for believing in something they could not logically come to believe. But if logic was involved, it wouldn't faith, and therefore pointless.

But I digress. Basically, if I'm wrong, I lose nothing and live a good life in "ignorance". If I'm right and decide to be an "I R TEH SMARTER THAN J00!" atheist, then I get tortured forever.

Personally, I don't like the heaven/hell aspect, and I just think Jesus had good ideas and was God's example of how to live. And I'll just stick to that.

ah yes the old argument from Pascal's Wager the biggest problem with it is that it assumes belief has no costs which is generally false.

[CMoon]

As for atheism vs. Christianity, this is how I look at it:
If I'm wrong, then I die and there is nothing. I lived a decent life and for all intents and purposes, was a fairly moral person who didn't fuck a lot of people over and blah blah.

If I'm right, then... atheists go to hell and are tortured forever and ever. Well, pending on what you believe. Personally, I like one sect of Christianity's belief that those people just cease to exist, as opposed to being punished for believing in something they could not logically come to believe. But if logic was involved, it wouldn't faith, and therefore pointless.

I'm rather dissapointed when people cite this particular rational. Whatever you believe in, I hope it is sincere and intrinsic, not a sort of cosmic gamble. I really don't think this is what the Christian idea of faith is anyway; it isn't mean to be an investment for some far-off divine payoff. If you believe in a sort thing, shouldn't that be because you feel that's what is right?

[it290]

That all depends on what sect you're talking about. I tend to view Catholicism as more of an 'insurance policy' like that, whereas that would never fly with most of the more enthusiastic Protestant sects.

[sethsez]

I also can't entirely wrap my head around believing something "just in case." True belief isn't something you can force like that, and if your main rationale is "well, hey, better than nothing" then I'd argue you don't truly believe it in the first place. You might do all the rituals and read the bible every day and pray every night, but if that's your main reason for joining a religion then there must be a huge, festering clump of doubt behind all the pantomiming of "true belief."

[jp]

You guys... learn to read an entire post... I specifically stated that thats just my rationale against atheism, and I even stated that I just believe what I believe for my own reasons. Its not a "Get out of hell free" card, I just said thats one miniscule argument I would have against atheism, and not the basis of my beliefs.

Somehow I knew most of you would pick that one slight piece out though... reading and responding to the entire posts has never been something people regularly do on here.

[jp]

I'm Christian, I believe in Jesus, I believe he was the template for which God wanted all people to follow so people wouldn't suck so bad. And I think over half of the Christians on this planet don't realize that and are too busy digging up stuff from the Old Testament and what not, which once Jesus came on the scene, became outdated.

As for atheism vs. Christianity, this is how I look at it:

Personally, I don't like the heaven/hell aspect, and I just think Jesus had good ideas and was God's example of how to live. And I'll just stick to that.

There, I made it easy. None of that nasty "reading" business.

[Rob]

I just said thats one miniscule argument I would have against atheism

And it was shot down with a quickness.

[magnum opus]

that one slight piece

it was half your post

I specifically stated that thats just my rationale against atheism,

yes and its a terrible and nonsensical rationale


and the other half was "i like the new testament" and "sometimes people misinterpret texts" neither of which needs replying too

[jp]

I just said thats one miniscule argument I would have against atheism

And it was shot down with a quickness.

Not really. No one addressed what I actually said. They just moaned about how thats a bad reason to have a religion, which I agree with, and never said it was a good reason to have religion in the first place.

it was half your post

and the other half was "i like the new testament" and "sometimes people misinterpret texts" neither of which needs replying too

It was an after thought since my reply was a response to the actual subject of the thread, and the after thought portion was simply input on the "I'm an atheist! I'm smarter!" idea.

Granted, since apparently this is just "I have no comprehension skills... you said this... it could mean this... haha... rah!", I have nothing further to add to this drivel.

[magnum opus]

the problem is that what ever reason you happen to believe it's valid or whatever reason you happen to invoke it it's an argument for why belief is better than lack of belief.
thus its an argument FOR belief not against athiesm. it's not a statement that athiesm is inherently bad or dumb its just that belief is better.
however its a really bad argument for belief being better
so it fails as an argument against athiesm/ists as well.
any use of it as an argument is a flawed no matter what your trying to express with it.

so when you say "my take on christianity vs athiesm"
and then give a rather common argument (your fist mistake as that tends to bring up past experiences) that fails in the attempt to support or attack either position than yeah people are going to call it bullshit

also sethsez specifically said he wasn't responding to you but to the argument.
i simply said its a bad argument
cmoon didn't really attack anything other than maybe beleif underfalse pretenses
it290 responded to cmoon
then sethsez basically agreed with cmoon, and again it wasn't attacking you he already said you were essentially exempt

none of us said YOU use belief as insurance

since my reply was a response to the actual subject of the thread

and again it was a pretty generic response that was in the case of twisting religion, previously agreed upon, and in the case of following the new testement, more of a personal manifesto.
neither really added or subtracted to the material already presented nor partticularly inflamitory so people chose to respond to the half of your post, after thought or not, that was quite clearly wrong headed


as a side note this is a classical example of why the english language needs hypothetical pronouns, so people can respond to something by saying 'you' but in a way that specifies they are simply talking about some hypothetical person

[shiftace]

as a side note this is a classical example of why the english language needs hypothetical pronouns, so people can respond to something by saying 'you' but in a way that specifies they are simply talking about some hypothetical person

"One" is used as a pronoun in this way.

[magnum opus]

as a side note this is a classical example of why the english language needs hypothetical pronouns, so people can respond to something by saying 'you' but in a way that specifies they are simply talking about some hypothetical person

"One" is used as a pronoun in this way.

yeah one works for for singular third person but theres a whole world of pronouns that would benefit from a conjugation or something

part of the problem is that a lot of people don't use 'one' although thats a fault of the people rather than the language.