Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is why I don't care for nor talk about religion, ever. People just get so...upset about it. Kind of like people who like all the different forms of screaming rock music. Light help you if you just call all of it screamo.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

You want to know who did help me? A whore.

Glad to have been of service, Slarg. Now I'll need 10% of your income. Since that's out of the way...

It's in the mail. I thought I told you that before.

Slarg232 wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

You want to know who did help me? A whore.

Glad to have been of service, Slarg. Now I'll need 10% of your income. Since that's out of the way...

It's in the mail. I thought I told you that before.

What a coincidence. Cannerus is in the male too

Preachy, rude and disrespectful atheists are bloody embarrassing. Learn to put forward your ideas without being rude and condescending, and maybe try a little less smug glibness in your posts, and you might get further. And if you're not posting with the intention of communicating, why are you posting?

Religion is a source of solace for many people- saying it's a "scourge" is idiotic.

I'm not religious either, but I can't stand the smug atheist routine.

Poppabear wrote:
If I came up to you and started to say that everything you believe in, and put your faith into, was a entire hunk of crap and because you believed that, makes you an idiot and a raging homosexual that likes to touch little boys!?!?!?!? You tell me where you would reason with me in that bloody situation. My guess is that any sort of reasoning up to that point would just be thrown out the window.

And its not just someone acting like an idiot (this has happened in the past because of people who "Just wanted to see what would happen") and they end up half dead on the side walk because of "What just happened". Its someone who attacks an entire religion and culture because they think its wrong and somewhere in that person self-righteous being is a git that deserves what ever comes to him.

Nope, I'm fairly sure, reading this, that you're the one acting like an idiot here. You have made several references to homosexuality and pedophilia as one and the same. That marks you as someone drastically naive and bigoted. Your comment is homophobic and typical of the 'religious' people who persecute an agenda of discrimination against the gay population and their rights as equals in society.

Homosexuality is entirely acceptable in Western society, it is a lifestyle and choice of sexual partner conducted between two consenting adults. Pedophilia is a horrific and tragic crime perpetrated against vulnerable children by predatory and malfunctioning individuals. Blending the two, as you have done in several statements in this thread, is something I've heard in pubs before, it's a myth spread by the fearful and prejudiced and hateful, something Christians are not supposed to be. I worked with abused children for several years and can assure you pedophilia is not gender-specific. It's about someone in a position of power abusing someone without power, not about sexual orientation.

Defending your religion by making blanket attacks and ignorant comments on other lifestyles is not a great way to engender support from the rest of us.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Poppabear wrote:
If I came up to you and started to say that everything you believe in, and put your faith into, was a entire hunk of crap and because you believed that, makes you an idiot and a raging homosexual that likes to touch little boys!?!?!?!? You tell me where you would reason with me in that bloody situation. My guess is that any sort of reasoning up to that point would just be thrown out the window.

And its not just someone acting like an idiot (this has happened in the past because of people who "Just wanted to see what would happen") and they end up half dead on the side walk because of "What just happened". Its someone who attacks an entire religion and culture because they think its wrong and somewhere in that person self-righteous being is a git that deserves what ever comes to him.

Nope, I'm fairly sure, reading this, that you're the one acting like an idiot here. You have made several references to homosexuality and pedophilia as one and the same. That marks you as someone drastically naive and bigoted. Your comment is homophobic and typical of the 'religious' people who persecute an agenda of discrimination against the gay population and their rights as equals in society.

Homosexuality is entirely acceptable in Western society, it is a lifestyle and choice of sexual partner conducted between two consenting adults. Pedophilia is a horrific and tragic crime perpetrated against vulnerable children by predatory and malfunctioning individuals. Blending the two, as you have done in several statements in this thread, is something I've heard in pubs before, it's a myth spread by the fearful and prejudiced and hateful, something Christians are not supposed to be. I worked with abused children for several years and can assure you pedophilia is not gender-specific. It's about someone in a position of power abusing someone without power, not about sexual orientation.

Defending your religion by making blanket attacks and ignorant comments on other lifestyles is not a great way to engender support from the rest of us.

This.

@All:

Please remember that "QFT," "FTW," and "This." type posts are all spam and spamming the forum is against the rules.

Thanks.

Poppabear wrote:You attack the Church, then you attack me as well, along with the other millions of Catholics as well. I just had a read of rule number one of the off topic forum, and your breaking it, you can complain about the leadership, but not about the structure or the Church in general, which you are. Now I would appreciate it if you would stop. There is no need to express your hate to the entire world, I can see you are one of those smug church haters, but you can be all smug as you will in your head.

If I'm breaking Rule 1, then you are too, mate. And yes, I do feel the need to express my opinion because I consider it horrible how people will purposefully blind themselves to the things that head members of the Catholic Church have done. And whenever you insult those horrible people, Catholics will claim religious discrimination despite the fact that you never said there's anything wrong with Catholicism or wrong with them, just those specific few people.

Poppabear wrote:Oh and FYI, I do think before I speak, I do for everything, I have a normal brain in which I am able to think about what is I am going to say and the reactions/consequences that will come along with what I am saying.

Same here bro. We should start a club for people like us.

Poppabear wrote:How bout this, go to Glasgow, and travel to Celtic Field, and shout at the top of your lungs about how the Catholic church is full of raging homosexuals and baby-touchers, then after you mayhem which will unsew, then you might get a grasp on reality and finally learn to "THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK"

Cheers

How bout this, go over to the parents of those molested kids and tell them to stop hating on the Catholic Church. Then maybe you'll learn to follow your own damn rule.

I don't get poppabear's argument. He's saying that violence will come upon you if you don't agree with the church? That's pretty typical of religion. "Agree with what we say or you get hurt".

You can criticize Ratzinger in a lot of ways that speak to real issues. One example is reprimanding these nuns -- it's a sign of his sympathy with centralizing power in the Church at the expense of the Church's pastoral relevance.

But calling Ratzinger a Nazi is just a baseless attack. It only proves that you (the generic, plural you; referring those who pop in to call Ratzinger a Nazi or similar inflammatory things) have no actual stake in the issue except to be self-righteous and/or anger other people.

I guess when the pope you up and tells you he's going to be having nun of your nunsense it really means the higher ups want nunthing to your current policies.

Eh eh eh?

They've developed an unfortunate habit.

Fun Fact! Not every Catholic want to make a uterus sacred and put holes into Trojans.

So please, before you make attacks against religion, remember that it has been around since the time of the Neanderthals. Both God/Gods worship and science is religion. And science is much easier to poke a hole into than religion. Christianity is a very definite thing, while science is a religion based on guesses.

Judging by those two descriptions, I would go with Religion. However, I go with science because it's easier for me to question than to believe. Most humans, however, find solace in the answers that religion gives us. It is much easier to believe that God created all than to hav to sift through a hundred different explanations of one event, each one having the possibility of being wrong itself.

Yes, religion has done bad by some accounts. But it was religion that brought us through the dark ages, it is religion that allows us to answer the hard questions with definite answers. It will be religion that will be the legs on which humanity, both Scientific religion and God worshiping Religion, will walk on.

I harbor no ill will towards religion. To people who abuse their powers who happen to be in religious positions, I do consider bad people. The church covered it up not because they are evil and want to brainwash everyone, but because they are scared of what would happen in the modern world if this got out. And we can see he results in this thread. Because less than 1% of 1% of 1% people affiliated with the church turned out to be pedophilles, we go after the organization as a whole. And just because a couple of idiots at the Vatican are more conservative than others, we blame the whole, not the individual.

It's easier to attack a group than a single person. I the names of the men who told these nuns this could be released, I would see it fit that they are heartily examined by a outside force to see if their radical views are full for the entire church. If they are not, perhaps they may not belong in that subsect of Christianity. If their ideas do fit, fine. He only people affected by it are he people who have a hard time thinking for themselves. And maybe when the views of the church become to radical, they can see what they are subscribing to and leave.

TL;DR: Hate the playa, not the game.

Chowderhead wrote:So please, before you make attacks against religion, remember that it has been around since the time of the Neanderthals.

There are plenty of things that have been around for a while - female circumcision, taking the women of your conquored enemies, etc... just because something is old or has been around a while does not make it either a) a good idea, b) right, or c) beyond criticism/mocking/etc.

science is religion... science is a religion based on guesses.

Edit: Fixed picture (hopefully)...

Manchu wrote:You can criticize Ratzinger in a lot of ways that speak to real issues. One example is reprimanding these nuns -- it's a sign of his sympathy with centralizing power in the Church at the expense of the Church's pastoral relevance.

But calling Ratzinger a Nazi is just a baseless attack. It only proves that you (the generic, plural you; referring those who pop in to call Ratzinger a Nazi or similar inflammatory things) have no actual stake in the issue except to be self-righteous and/or anger other people.

[blatant sarcasm]Yes, because calling a former Nazi a Nazi means that I'm a trolling idiot who doesn't care about the issue. Man, you sure are good at diagnosing people you don't even know over the Internet. You could be a psychologist![/blatant sarcasm]

LoneLictor wrote:[blatant sarcasm]Yes, because calling a former Nazi a Nazi means that I'm a trolling idiot who doesn't care about the issue. Man, you sure are good at diagnosing people you don't even know over the Internet. You could be a psychologist![/blatant sarcasm]

The Hitler Youth membership was required for all Aryans over the age of 14 (the Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law), regardless of whether you went along with the Nazi ideology or not. I have no idea if he was Aryan or not though.

Female circumsicion is impossible, seeing as how they don't have a, you know, penis.

The guesses in science are based on information we gather. But still, more often than not, it's a theory. Gravity, the round earth, reality, they are all theories. And theories are all guesses with the knowledge we have at the current time. It's a massive leap in judgement to call science a religion of guesses, but that's what I consider it.

TAKE NOTE: I put my faith in science, not some crazy book written a few thousand years ago about an angsty cosmic zombie.

Chowderhead wrote:

So please, before you make attacks against religion, remember that it has been around since the time of the Neanderthals.

Thats the point, while the rest of us evolves religion stays the same stupid.

Chowderhead wrote:
Both God/Gods worship and science is religion. And science is much easier to poke a hole into than religion. Christianity is a very definite thing, while science is a religion based on guesses.

Are you saying religion is a proven fact and science is guesses? Are you even for real?

Chowderhead wrote:
Yes, religion has done bad by some accounts. But it was religion that brought us through the dark ages, it is religion that allows us to answer the hard questions with definite answers. It will be religion that will be the legs on which humanity, both Scientific religion and God worshiping Religion, will walk on.

Telling lies is bad, it says so in the bible. Stop doing it so blatantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:Female circumsicion is impossible, seeing as how they don't have a, you know, penis.

Female circumsicion is impossible..? How freaking stupid are you?

Chowderhead wrote:Female circumsicion is impossible

Oh really?

The guesses in science are based on information we gather

... from repeatable experiments done by, in some cases, thousands of different people/groups, peer assessed and checked, altered and updated to reflect new discoveries.

theory.

Please, look up the difference between a scientific theory and common usage of the word theory.

the round earth... are all theories.

What have you been smoking? I would advise you to stop and go and attend a science class

It's a massive leap in judgement to call science a religion of guesses, but that's what I consider it.

Well, I would say that it is a complete fallacy to call science a religion, but hey, each to their own

Bla_Ze wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

So please, before you make attacks against religion, remember that it has been around since the time of the Neanderthals.

Thats the point, while the rest of us evolves religion stays the same stupid.

We haven't had the same religion as we did as Neanderthals. If we did, we would be worshiping bears and mounting their skulls onto or walls.

Religion changes based on societies needs.

Chowderhead wrote:
Both God/Gods worship and science is religion. And science is much easier to poke a hole into than religion. Christianity is a very definite thing, while science is a religion based on guesses.

Are you saying religion is a proven fact and science is guesses? Are you even for real?

Chowderhead wrote:the round earth...they are all theories.

You must consider orbital spaceflight to be theoretical as well, then.

Seaward wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:the round earth...they are all theories.

You must consider orbital spaceflight to be theoretical as well, then.

My Biology teacher said anything can be a theory. Whether you believe it or not is based upon the evidence supporting it.
So the Earth being round has a lot of evidence supporting it. The Earth being flat does not.
You still get to choose which one you back.

I'm more into the idea of the earth being on the back of a turtle.

purplefood wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:the round earth...they are all theories.

You must consider orbital spaceflight to be theoretical as well, then.

My Biology teacher said anything can be a theory. Whether you believe it or not is based upon the evidence supporting it.
So the Earth being round has a lot of evidence supporting it. The Earth being flat does not.
You still get to choose which one you back.

Then your biology teacher is an idiot. Anything can be a hypothesis. It only gets to be a theory when it has a mountain of evidence supporting it. So while the earth being round could technically be a theory (it's not, incidentally, considering the supporting evidence is that the earth is round), the earth being flat is a hypothesis, and an easily disproven one at that (see bit about earth being round).

Chowderhead wrote:I just read the Wikipedia article on it, and the practice has nothing to do with Christianity, and more with Islam and the forceful keeping of virginity.

I raised it as an example of how something has been around for a while, doesn't make it right or beyond question, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm more into the idea of the earth being on the back of a turtle.

It's turtles all the way down!

No, I think the earth is round. I never said I didn't. Stop putting words into my mouth.

A scientific theory to me is a tested and expanded hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework. If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

So if we get a new piece of information that says that we are all actually living in pods on Xenu, we would have to change all science to fit it.

If religion got this news, it's Gods doing. It is a much easier thing to say than to completely re-do our definition of reality as we know it.

Also, I mean round earth used to be a theory. Sorry for being unclear.

Laughing Man wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:the round earth...they are all theories.

You must consider orbital spaceflight to be theoretical as well, then.

My Biology teacher said anything can be a theory. Whether you believe it or not is based upon the evidence supporting it.
So the Earth being round has a lot of evidence supporting it. The Earth being flat does not.
You still get to choose which one you back.

Then your biology teacher is an idiot. Anything can be a hypothesis. It only gets to be a theory when it has a mountain of evidence supporting it. So while the earth being round could technically be a theory (it's not, incidentally, considering the supporting evidence is that the earth is round), the earth being flat is a hypothesis, and an easily disproven one at that (see bit about earth being round).

Actually he probably said hypothesis rather than theory...
I was pretty hungover the day he said that...

Laughing Man wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:the round earth...they are all theories.

You must consider orbital spaceflight to be theoretical as well, then.

My Biology teacher said anything can be a theory. Whether you believe it or not is based upon the evidence supporting it.
So the Earth being round has a lot of evidence supporting it. The Earth being flat does not.
You still get to choose which one you back.

Then your biology teacher is an idiot. Anything can be a hypothesis. It only gets to be a theory when it has a mountain of evidence supporting it. So while the earth being round could technically be a theory (it's not, incidentally, considering the supporting evidence is that the earth is round), the earth being flat is a hypothesis, and an easily disproven one at that (see bit about earth being round).

And if one scrap of evidence is wrong, the entire theory is right oh the window.

With religion, you can say god did it, and be done with it. Much easier than research.

What I am trying to say is that Religion Is easier than science. No more, no less. I think that religion will become unneccisary at a later date, but for now, we need it.

Castiel wrote:Well this thread is going well. I think that the Vatican made a really daft call on this one.

On another note please stop all the bashing of religion. Live and let live, people.

Its up to religions to live and let live. You can't ask to be left alone to believe what you want to believe while demonizing women, atheists, and homosexuals., and trying to turn them into second class citizens. Nor while claiming a tax free status and comparing Obama to Hitler.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:the round earth...they are all theories.

You must consider orbital spaceflight to be theoretical as well, then.

My Biology teacher said anything can be a theory. Whether you believe it or not is based upon the evidence supporting it.
So the Earth being round has a lot of evidence supporting it. The Earth being flat does not.
You still get to choose which one you back.

Then your biology teacher is an idiot. Anything can be a hypothesis. It only gets to be a theory when it has a mountain of evidence supporting it. So while the earth being round could technically be a theory (it's not, incidentally, considering the supporting evidence is that the earth is round), the earth being flat is a hypothesis, and an easily disproven one at that (see bit about earth being round).

And if one scrap of evidence is wrong, the entire theory is right oh the window.

With religion, you can say god did it, and be done with it. Much easier than research.

What I am trying to say is that Religion Is easier than science. No more, no less. I think that religion will become unneccisary at a later date, but for now, we need it.

If one piece of data is wrong, that piece of data is removed. Then if the theory still stands on the mountains of other evidence, the theory still works.

You mean with religion its lazier, and we no longer need it.

sirlynchmob wrote:You mean with religion its lazier, and we no longer need it.

Eventually, we will no longer need religion.

But right now, we need it. Without it, a lot of political messes that have been fixed will become such clusterfeths that we won't be able to sort out our ass from anothers.