Are These People Serious?

I'm agnostic.

I think being an atheist is too arrogant on its own. Since I don't know, I pick the middle road and live my life.

I knew the reason why Columbus came to America (according to his diaries and what the history books say, not what he was thinking at the time) but I desided to rephrase that in a sarcastic manner that went over your head and caused that attack against my knowledge in the manner.


We turning this into another "Bash Korpg" and "Bash fat people" thread? Trying to get this locked like that other thread?


Spreading false or altered information is the problem, which is the whole point of this discussion. If our views of a religion is incorrect, we have the choice to change our views or not say anything about the subject again.


I doubt that the Christians would deny their ruler (because that happens to be who leads his men during the Crusades) a place to sleep and rest. And, I doubt that all Christians during the Crusades were all great people because all in all, you have a mob mentality who thinks they own your lives, so why should they let you live peacefully? Anyone (and I do mean anyone) in that position of power will abuse it to the full extent. Especially since you can get away with it.

But you forget that at the time the Church was the ruler and how long do you think it would take a message to get to those parts of the "known" world? Not everyone was update on what's going on with the changes in a timely fashion.

Back in those days, there was no internet. Chatrooms were basically intertwined cans and string, and the moderators were the only people in the village with a pair of scissors.

I'm willing to bet all my gil that's how communication was done back in those days.

I don't believe that at all. I think it was messenger pigeons and the mods had shotguns.

Church had power, but they weren't the ruling class.

Why do you think England rebeled against them and won?

Church had money, they had power, but they didn't use it to create a state (a government if you will) to rule their people with. Only reason why the actual governments didn't oppose them (with the exception of England) was because they happen to meet the needs of the ruling classes.

See, here's the mentality of the ruling classes: I need some loyal followers here, and an army to beat the ***out of anyone who opposes me. All I got are a bunch of retards who don't know ***from ***. I need something to modivate them into dying for my causes. Oh ***, here comes a religion. I can tell them that if they make outlandish promises for me, like that I'm appointed by God, and that my word is also God's word, then I can get them to do my bidding. All its going to cost me is to give some money to this "Church" of theirs and "swear" my alligance to the Church, even though my enemies also swear their alligance to the same Church. As long as they leave me alone politically, I will leave them alone politically.

See what I mean?

I'm pretty sure the scissor was invented before the shotgun :P

Korpg, your avatar has me wondering if your boobs really do bounce like that irl lol

Why is everyone obsessed about my looks?

You guys uglier than me or something?

I am and the Church>Kingdoms back then. It just united all of them to get what they wanted.

Shotgun was around before the wheel was invented.

FACT!

Yet, they did not rule.

How were they better than the ruling class?

Edit: Forgot to mention that they also did not unite the people. You still had wars on a yearly basis even with the Church "controlling" them all.

Controlling = influencing, not ruling in this manner.

The ruling class bowed to them and did what "God" told them to do.

No they didn't.

God says to not kill, but yet they killed on a daily basis "in the name of God."

How was that control? Or showing absolute obedience?

They were told it was God's land and the Christians must control it even if bloodshed was needed. The Church can forgive all sins that were committed.

I shall only stop debating for the fact that this would never end and it's getting boring.

I would say that it wasn't. They weren't acting Biblically (and therefore weren't acting as Christians) but based on "natural" human laws.

All because people say they act in the name of God, doesn't mean they are. *duh*

Korpg, I sincerely doubt me asking that question is being "obsessed" with your looks. But you're right. Picking an avatar that jiggles her boobs screams "Respect me for my intellect!" Don't flatter yourself, it was a semi-innocent question. I wasn't planning on throwing my life away to buy a plane ticket and convince myself we have a future together, lol.

Oh lord. lol <3

For when, you seriously are a douchebag for that first comment, that has nothing to do with any of this.

For second, the first argument in that picture is also applied to religion. No one has any clue where energy/matter started or how we even exist. Also, the same fact of the matter is that it can be said that God came from nowhere, too. Real believable.

Everything after the start of existence is accountable for by science.

God made it, duh.

Evolution. How were reese's peanut butter cups first made? etc.

*holds 2 toy cars up* It was like ...crash! *booms them together*

That Family Guy episode comes to mind.

That's what I was driving at! ohohoho!

lawlz

Yeah, I'm really a hot chick behind the screen, aren't I?

And I wasn't just directing that comment to you, another person also happens to comment on my looks....


Was it the church who really said that or was that one of the ruling class's rules? Alas, I don't know the answer to that either, but if you look at it logically, one would say that the ruling class has more to gain from that comment than the Church.


Ok, welcome to theology 101. Religions are made based on "natural" human laws. The morals are made from what is percieved to be "right and just" and can change at any time. Everything about every religion is just a shared believe about what is right in the world, plus it has some nice moral stories and usually some guy who dies for you or disappears and promises to come back or is reincarnated from a different relm or plane. If you just take out the stories, and looked really hard at the morals, you will find that the 10 Commandments = the 99 rules of Islam = the teachings of Budha. They are all the same. Period. /end preach.

100% against religion -.- So long as people are fighting and dieing over it, I'll never follow it or respect it. Religion was born out of a fear of death, and a need for closure, and then manipulated as an extremely efficient means to control the masses. I don't see animals worshiping a god, which is maybe due to a lack of intelligence, but I would think if a deity wanted to be worshiped it would be a matter of instinct anyway. I'm just glad I can throw Charles Darwin at all the brain washed missionaries coming to my door and telling me about the start of human kind, and how I should live my life. And of course, who created the creator?

Non-committal laughing is unacceptable. Either caps that ***, add in some "ha"s or it's just hurting my feelings.

Also, I don't think being an atheist is too arrogant at all. If you take a look at religion, and take what they say at face value then I could argue that my claim to own a magical eraser that flies and talks and guides my life along the path of righteousness is just as valid. Is it so much to ask for proof? Could not such an incredible being as god, who is renown for creating the world in five days, send down another prophet in modern times (cell phone pictures or it didn't happen) like he supposedly did Jesus? If he exists, he sees the doubt in all of us, he sees the wars over it... What's he doing? having a lol over it?

He lol's at stuff like this.

It seems a very 'human' concept to insist that God created man 'in his own image'^^. Leave that kind of raving conceit to humans any day.

Religion far too closely resembles politics in my opinion, and I'm sure anyone will see the negative connotations of that comparison.

I know for a fact that for many people, organised religion gives them something to focus on and enriches their lives, genuinely, which is a wonderful thing. Then again, my ex-girlfriend now has some 'serious' mental issues as a direct result of being involved in devout Christianity =/.

That being said the existence of such a powerful tool which by default isn't required to substantiate the majority of things it does, seems like a bad idea when you consider the large potential for human subversion.

I guess what I mean is many of the principles inherent in religious teachings are great and wonderful things. But if something has such potential for spurning some of the horrific acts mentioned in this thread, the question is raised; overall, wouldn't we be better off without it?


Added Note: It's always bothered me that the Pope lolls around in gold & jewel encrusted robes... where's the humble? XD

If there is a 'God' he's probably letting us run our course. Any interference is pretty unfair and would taint our true nature. It would be "good" but not "truly good". If he's out there, he's waiting for us to become "good" on our own decision. I'd guess.

Anyways, I don't really think atheism is arrogance because belief isn't a choice, generally speaking. I don't choose to believe there's nothing out there, it just feels more right than anything else.