Vash^ I'm not drunk enough to even begin imagining this.
> Requires sustenance in a a form other than bananas.
v Will find me and cook for me.
Pyro V Member
Status
User has no status, yet
Bio
User has no bio, yet
Most Recent Posts
^ What did you think I used all those bananas for?
> None shall stop my reign of terror on the Teddy Bear Kingdom
v Shall be the hero the Teddy Bears need.
> None shall stop my reign of terror on the Teddy Bear Kingdom
v Shall be the hero the Teddy Bears need.
Interested.
^
> Not a bitch.
v Probably a bitch.
> Not a bitch.
v Probably a bitch.
All of spam are pussies.
I would like to be drawn as a pussy (cat) as well.
I would like to be drawn as a pussy (cat) as well.
What we seem to be arguing is the question of "Do we blame the man or the gun?"
To me, blaming a gun for a man's death is illogical. Blaming the man that pulled the trigger, that is what should be done.
You are blaming religion for people making illogical, irrational, or just plain ignorant/stupid decisions and/or actions. I choose to blame the individuals, as if they are if they have the mentality to do something and then hide behind religion, it should not be blamed on the religion, but rather on the individuals.
As for arguing that believing in something because there is no evidence is illogical, well, that is much of what belief is. If nobody believed in something without evidence at first, then nearly nothing would have been accomplished in the history of anything. The proof or evidence of an invisible sky-daddy is likely nigh-on impossible to find other than a bunch of old books that say so, but, nevertheless, it shouldn't be discouraged simply because "We cannot see, therefore it does not exist."
That idea, in and of itself, seems to be more closeminded and irrational than most religions I've seen or heard of, and is something that I simply can not agree with.
To me, blaming a gun for a man's death is illogical. Blaming the man that pulled the trigger, that is what should be done.
You are blaming religion for people making illogical, irrational, or just plain ignorant/stupid decisions and/or actions. I choose to blame the individuals, as if they are if they have the mentality to do something and then hide behind religion, it should not be blamed on the religion, but rather on the individuals.
As for arguing that believing in something because there is no evidence is illogical, well, that is much of what belief is. If nobody believed in something without evidence at first, then nearly nothing would have been accomplished in the history of anything. The proof or evidence of an invisible sky-daddy is likely nigh-on impossible to find other than a bunch of old books that say so, but, nevertheless, it shouldn't be discouraged simply because "We cannot see, therefore it does not exist."
That idea, in and of itself, seems to be more closeminded and irrational than most religions I've seen or heard of, and is something that I simply can not agree with.
Religion can be used to weaponize things such as homophobia, racism, and anti-medicine, however, the former two can be just from people who are intolerant of others. Any backwoods hick can be racist or homophobic without the use of Religion, if their upbringing was hateful against gays and colored people. The issue is, people like to hide behind the Bible and their Religion, because they need something to use as a symbol for their hate, or to find somewhere to find people who hold similar views. Now, where I come from, the Church does not give a damn what you are, the priests teach to love each other no matter what.
I simply do not see Religion, what it teaches, or how it teaches, as to be something to be considered bad. Someone raised in a religion, even fervently, can decide whether or not to continue being a part of it through their own logical reasoning. Unless their religion uses some kind of indoctrination process that essentially brainwashes them as children to never question their religion (in which case, that is something that should not be happening anywhere) then it is their choice to follow it, not anything the religion did to them. And if we did not have religion, it could easily happen somewhere else with something else (ex. political, social).
Believing in something with no physical evidence is not something that could be considered a bad practice, unless it is something that can prohibit everyone else on one or more regards. Believing in a higher power without any evidence, but not shoving it into people's faces or trying to hold back society with it, is not a bad practice. If one were to, however, use their belief in a higher power to force something onto someone else, or infringe on the rights of someone else, then that is a bad practice. However, the belief itself is not one, as the belief itself harms nobody, but things that stem from that belief because of the mentality of the believer may or may not be a "bad practice".
I simply do not see Religion, what it teaches, or how it teaches, as to be something to be considered bad. Someone raised in a religion, even fervently, can decide whether or not to continue being a part of it through their own logical reasoning. Unless their religion uses some kind of indoctrination process that essentially brainwashes them as children to never question their religion (in which case, that is something that should not be happening anywhere) then it is their choice to follow it, not anything the religion did to them. And if we did not have religion, it could easily happen somewhere else with something else (ex. political, social).
Believing in something with no physical evidence is not something that could be considered a bad practice, unless it is something that can prohibit everyone else on one or more regards. Believing in a higher power without any evidence, but not shoving it into people's faces or trying to hold back society with it, is not a bad practice. If one were to, however, use their belief in a higher power to force something onto someone else, or infringe on the rights of someone else, then that is a bad practice. However, the belief itself is not one, as the belief itself harms nobody, but things that stem from that belief because of the mentality of the believer may or may not be a "bad practice".
Banned for banning your allies.
^ Damn blue circles in my spam threads.
> Is blue, but not a circle.
v Probably not blue.
> Is blue, but not a circle.
v Probably not blue.
I'ma tread on old ground here, probably something that was already cleared up, agreed on, whatever, that I don't remember because I read this entire thread at one in the morning and I'm tired.
I was born and raised Catholic. The tenants of Catholicism were not driven into my skull with a hammer. During Mass, the younger children would go to a small class for the first half of church, and we would learn things in a simpler manner. Some of it would be bible studies, and other things would be just kids having fun. However, these little classes, along with Sunday school, helped in shape my morals. And, they also taught us to question things. They liked it when we asked questions. Especially my priests.
Now, when I started to get older, especially in middle and the early years of high school, I started to question things far more seriously. And I did it on my own time, through my own logical thought processes, and by reading the bible. And here's what I've come up with: You should not need any sort of religion to be a moral person. Morality, from what I've been able to figure, comes from how you were raised, who you were raised by, and who was around you. What you experienced growing up, how you experienced it. The school system did very, very little to show children anything about morals or what was good/bad. My parents and the church taught me that. And then when I got old enough to think for myself, I molded those ideals into what my moral standpoint.
Now, I remember somewhere on this thread, someone asked: If you were raised without any sort of outside stimuli until you were an adult, and then thrust into the world, would you have morals? I do not believe so, on the grounds that you wouldn't know much of anything. How would you know if something was right or wrong? I can say that I wouldn't, and I can say that I believe others would not.
I also want to say something about empathy. Empathy, the ability to feel what others feel, and emotional connection to the world, is an ideal that not everyone will join in on. My opinion is, if there no religious dictates or secular laws preventing many things, such as theft or murder, then what would stop people from doing it other than their own morality? If there were never any religious or secular laws preventing those things, where would the moral standpoint on it have come from? One man may feel bad because this other man had all of his things stolen from him, but it wouldn't be like anything wrong was done, because nothing would have dictated that it was so.
On to what I remember being said as: Proof that good can come out of Religion that can't come out of something secular, or something along those lines. In all honesty, I cannot say that there is. But, the same can be said for the bad things that come out of Religion. People have wars for religion, and people have wars for politics. A parent may feel that gay marriage is wrong because God said so, or they may believe it is wrong, simply because they don't practice it. Either way, it is still a bad opinion to have. The fact of the matter is, one man may do something bad because his religion allowed it, whereas another would do the same without the need for religion allowing it.
My whole point is: Religion is both good and bad, has good and bad, and will always have good and bad. Why is that? Because it was made by humans, and we have both good and evil in us. If you wish to believe that the entire structure of Religion is evil, that is your belief, but the way we were taught as children through religion was not what you (Magic Magnum) say (or at least seem to be saying, to my eyes) it is.
Since we are on beliefs: Brovo, your idea of seeing = believing is one that I can respect, even if I disagree with it. I was born and raised Catholic, and even though I've moved away from Catholicism in a lot of things, I still believe in a God of some sort, far more benevolent and passionate than the one Christianity champions. But that veers off into something Magnum said earlier about religion breaking off into more and more splinter groups. However, a belief in something that cannot be seen can help a lot of people, as it provides a sort of hope that they would otherwise be without. Yes, it can be detrimental to others, however that should not be used against those that it could benefit. Though I don't believe you were trying to persuade anyone into your way of believing, I just wanted to touch on that subject.
But, I feel I am ranting and I can barely follow anything I'm typing at this point, so I'm going to quit here, and hope that what I've wrote down doesn't just appear as a jumbled mess but as something that looks at least a bit coherent. If it is a mess, than I apologize for that and will blame it on my being tired as hell.
I was born and raised Catholic. The tenants of Catholicism were not driven into my skull with a hammer. During Mass, the younger children would go to a small class for the first half of church, and we would learn things in a simpler manner. Some of it would be bible studies, and other things would be just kids having fun. However, these little classes, along with Sunday school, helped in shape my morals. And, they also taught us to question things. They liked it when we asked questions. Especially my priests.
Now, when I started to get older, especially in middle and the early years of high school, I started to question things far more seriously. And I did it on my own time, through my own logical thought processes, and by reading the bible. And here's what I've come up with: You should not need any sort of religion to be a moral person. Morality, from what I've been able to figure, comes from how you were raised, who you were raised by, and who was around you. What you experienced growing up, how you experienced it. The school system did very, very little to show children anything about morals or what was good/bad. My parents and the church taught me that. And then when I got old enough to think for myself, I molded those ideals into what my moral standpoint.
Now, I remember somewhere on this thread, someone asked: If you were raised without any sort of outside stimuli until you were an adult, and then thrust into the world, would you have morals? I do not believe so, on the grounds that you wouldn't know much of anything. How would you know if something was right or wrong? I can say that I wouldn't, and I can say that I believe others would not.
I also want to say something about empathy. Empathy, the ability to feel what others feel, and emotional connection to the world, is an ideal that not everyone will join in on. My opinion is, if there no religious dictates or secular laws preventing many things, such as theft or murder, then what would stop people from doing it other than their own morality? If there were never any religious or secular laws preventing those things, where would the moral standpoint on it have come from? One man may feel bad because this other man had all of his things stolen from him, but it wouldn't be like anything wrong was done, because nothing would have dictated that it was so.
On to what I remember being said as: Proof that good can come out of Religion that can't come out of something secular, or something along those lines. In all honesty, I cannot say that there is. But, the same can be said for the bad things that come out of Religion. People have wars for religion, and people have wars for politics. A parent may feel that gay marriage is wrong because God said so, or they may believe it is wrong, simply because they don't practice it. Either way, it is still a bad opinion to have. The fact of the matter is, one man may do something bad because his religion allowed it, whereas another would do the same without the need for religion allowing it.
My whole point is: Religion is both good and bad, has good and bad, and will always have good and bad. Why is that? Because it was made by humans, and we have both good and evil in us. If you wish to believe that the entire structure of Religion is evil, that is your belief, but the way we were taught as children through religion was not what you (Magic Magnum) say (or at least seem to be saying, to my eyes) it is.
Since we are on beliefs: Brovo, your idea of seeing = believing is one that I can respect, even if I disagree with it. I was born and raised Catholic, and even though I've moved away from Catholicism in a lot of things, I still believe in a God of some sort, far more benevolent and passionate than the one Christianity champions. But that veers off into something Magnum said earlier about religion breaking off into more and more splinter groups. However, a belief in something that cannot be seen can help a lot of people, as it provides a sort of hope that they would otherwise be without. Yes, it can be detrimental to others, however that should not be used against those that it could benefit. Though I don't believe you were trying to persuade anyone into your way of believing, I just wanted to touch on that subject.
But, I feel I am ranting and I can barely follow anything I'm typing at this point, so I'm going to quit here, and hope that what I've wrote down doesn't just appear as a jumbled mess but as something that looks at least a bit coherent. If it is a mess, than I apologize for that and will blame it on my being tired as hell.
© 2007-2024