Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    If a religion is sustained, there is always the opportunity for fundamentalist reinterpretations. It is just a preference of mine that such people be atheists, I'm not telling them how they should live their lives and what choice to make. That would almost make me religious. :p:



    Well, you've generalised a lot here, but so did I in the previous post.

    That does not upset me at all, if that were the case with all religious people. But it sure as hell isn't. Your point about atheists and charity isn't even correct. And atheism does not necessarily mean amorality. Bad things are done by religious people and byatheists, and good things are done by both.

    I do have a moral code actually. Morality does not require theistic beliefs, it is a philosophy.
    No generalisations here, just FACT.
    http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/3447051.html

    Religious people give more like for like. So yes it is correct! Har har.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiouslyorange1989)
    lol well as an orientation it is completely innate, however i would argue that the acceptance of the liberal morality and engagment in homosexual activity could consititute its own ideology.
    OK, but most would trace the acceptance of homosexuality to liberalism. It's not like feminism, which is a distinct ideology.

    (Original post by curiouslyorange1989)
    im not into the whole "it unnatural" scene because at the end of the day i dont give a rats ass as to what is natural (too many hippies and animal rights activites whinge on about it ) however i would argue that my ideology conflicts with said homosexual ideology, which is why i personally would not be a practicing homosexual even if i was that way inclined. That is not to say that this view should be impressed on any other individual, and indeed i have many gay friends through amatuer dramatics and such, that is just a personal view.
    Since sex is such an important part of life, I seriously doubt you'd behave the way you suggest you would if they were born gay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    Current studies indicate that people in like for like positions, with the only difference between people being that 1 is religious and the other atheist, that the religious person will give 25% extra time and money to charity. http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/3447051.html

    So 91% of religious people give in comparison to 66% of non-religious people in like for like scenarios:yep: .
    Oh, not a religion vs athiest again.

    Want me to produce a table which contains the number of religious terrorists vs the number of athiest terrorists?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    You asked the question "Why are people like this alive?" (and believe me, English is my secound language but I can see an awful grammatical mistake in there), so your preferred response from "respondents", is "No, he does not deserve to live"? And you think that is not vehement?
    I need help with my grammar, you need help with your spelling. I admitted (if you'd bothered reading the entire thread) that my title was an overreaction. I guess you have poor human empathy (that's hardly surprising though, given your background). What do you think people want when they're angry? Similar reactions (i.e. condemning what happened).

    What are you trying to achieve by calling me a troll? You've done nothing but litter the thread with irrelevant and stupid posts.

    I do not think I am trying to stop the discussion and it is you who constantly asked me to shut up or **** off. You are hardly interested in any sort of discussion yourself other than being provocative.
    Why the hell did you post in this thread? People were discussing things - I suggest you go and read the entire thread before coming into it and insult me. Just go away.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    You see what you're doing here? You're picking and choosing. Your obviously bigoted against gay people and you condone the Church's discriminatory stance against them, but reject their position with regard to women [which is as clearly set out in the Bible as homosexuality] because you dislike discrimination against women.
    No, it's not set out in the bible or stated in anyway at all. In fact it's not even said that Bishops should exist in the bible. Jesus consistently used women whenever he could and what they say is just their speculation on what Jesus would have done if the opportunity to use a female in part of his group was available. I'm not bigoted against gay people, gay people can be in the clergy, they just can't be practicing because the bible is very direct on the issue. Not only that but i've never known a gay person to keep 1 person for their entire lives, I might reconsider if this were the case but i'm not sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    OK, but most would trace the acceptance of homosexuality to liberalism. It's not like feminism, which is a distinct ideology.



    Since sex is such an important part of life, I seriously doubt you'd behave the way you suggest you would if they were born gay.
    Its not that big of a deal to be fair, id probably just do what the really fat/ugly people to and make friends with my hand (im not catholic so im allowed )
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    Current studies indicate that people in like for like positions, with the only difference between people being that 1 is religious and the other atheist, that the religious person will give 25% extra time and money to charity. http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/3447051.html

    So 91% of religious people give in comparison to 66% of non-religious people in like for like scenarios:yep: .
    Well that's just one study, so it's hardly a 'fact'. Secondly, it would be interesting to find out just why they donated the money. In other words, to what causes.

    Furthermore, if you need the fear of eternal punishment to do good, it brings into question your sincerity and good will.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    both sides are stupid for arguing over insginificant details of a religion which is blatently false itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    Oh, not a religion vs athiest again.

    Want me to produce a table which contains the number of religious terrorists vs the number of athiest terrorists?
    Atheists do wrong as well, they are just compelled by other things. Even if this weren't true the 0.000001% extra chance of being a terrorist is easily out weighed by the 25% extra giving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    Not just cherry picking bible quotes but now cherry picking statistics?

    Ooh, I can do that too!

    Fact: Atheists make up 0.2% of the prison population.

    Fact: Atheists are much less likely to get divorced than Christians.

    How does one judge morality? Which statistic is to be used?
    Another thing I'd like to ask is (even if it were true, which it isn't), why would Christians be more 'moral'? Do they do it only because the bible tells them? Then what about their own instincts. Do they do it because they fear God? Or do they want to go heaven? In that case, then, it's not exactly charity, is it?
    Well, the bible advises to give charitably, it isn't a requirement, nothing will happen to if you don't give. You give simply to please God. Got any references for these 'facts' of yours? I at least showed you a study comparing 30,000 people, pretty undeniable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Usar)
    I need help with my grammar, you need help with your spelling. I admitted (if you'd bothered reading the entire thread) that my title was an overreaction. I guess you have poor human empathy (that's hardly surprising though, given your background). What do you think people want when they're angry? Similar reactions (i.e. condemning what happened).

    What are you trying to achieve by calling me a troll? You've done nothing but litter the thread with irrelevant and stupid posts.

    Why the hell did you post in this thread? People were discussing things - I suggest you go and read the entire thread before coming into it and insult me. Just go away.
    Point 1: I do not consider the word "trolling" is insulting, it is a nickname given to people who post vehement, vigor thread titles in the hope of a vehement, vigor responses (and clearly, you largely failed, because almost everyone here is smarter than you think).

    In term of insults and attacks, how about you telling me to "**** off"?

    Just to answer your irrelavent question that why do I post in "your thread" (btw, you are the founder of TSR?) is because I feel I have a right to point out what is obvious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    Well that's just one study, so it's hardly a 'fact'. Secondly, it would be interesting to find out just why they donated the money. In other words, to what causes.

    Furthermore, if you need the fear of eternal punishment to do good, it brings into question your sincerity and good will.
    Find me the part of the bible that says 'give or you'll go to hell', you can't. The bible meerly says you should give charitably, not you have to give charitably. You could not give a penny in your entire life and you'd still go to heaven as long as you believed in Jesus and were sorry for your sins. People give to please God, which is as good a reason as any. Find me a contrasting study showing it's not true then if it's just one study. It seems fairly conclusive to me, given that it was conducted among 30,000 people in different locations, different ages, socioeconomic groups. Of course you would just discount it because it doesn't fit with your ridiculously biased view of the world. Please present me with some facts saying that it's equal in like for like scenarios or give up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    Point 1: I do not consider the word "trolling" is insulting, it is a nickname given to people who post vehement, vigor thread titles in the hope of a vehement, vigor responses (and clearly, you largely failed, because almost everyone here is smarter than you think).

    In term of insults and attacks, how about you telling me to "**** off"?

    Just to answer your irrelavent question that why do I post in "your thread" (btw, you are the founder of TSR?) is because I feel I have a right to point out what is obvious.
    I do not consider the words "**** off" "are" insulting. :rolleyes: Don't deliberately be so dense.

    If it's so obvious, why do you feel the need to "point out?" No one's agreeing with you.

    And, let's assume (wrongly) that I was trolling - considering when you posted, people were discussing things, obviously I would have failed in my mission. What have you achieved by this? You obviously don't have anything better to do - you're not doing your stereotype any good.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    No, it's not set out in the bible or stated in anyway at all. In fact it's not even said that Bishops should exist in the bible. Jesus consistently used women whenever he could and what they say is just their speculation on what Jesus would have done if the opportunity to use a female in part of his group was available.
    Well many Conservative Christians disagree with you. There are quite a number of passages which make it clear that women and men are not 'equal' in the secular, modern sense of the word.

    (Original post by funkypish)
    I'm not bigoted against gay people, gay people can be in the clergy, they just can't be practicing because the bible is very direct on the issue.
    Again, it cannot possibly be as black and white as you suggest, otherwise the Anglican community (along with most other denominations) would not be arguing over this.

    (Original post by funkypish)
    Not only that but i've never known a gay person to keep 1 person for their entire lives, I might reconsider if this were the case but i'm not sure.
    That's just due to your own ignorance and homophobia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Demokrat)
    Both from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

    The sources:
    Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997

    George Barna, Christian Sociologist
    You do realise that only 4% of America terms themselves 'atheist' don't you? This 4% is also highly likely to be among the educated group and will therefore not be involved in crime nearly as much. It hardly proves anything...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    Atheists do wrong as well, they are just compelled by other things. Even if this weren't true the 0.000001% extra chance of being a terrorist is easily out weighed by the 25% extra giving.
    So lets stop the argument, "Statisitcs dont lie, but we can lie with statistics". I am hardly suprised to see religious people are generally more generous. To simplify this, Religious people do rights and wrongs, Athiest people do rights and wrongs too. A Religious people may find 1000 stats to "prove" that they are "better" (but so can an atheist) which makes the entire argument meaningless.

    It is also not hard to find flaws in the stats you put up,

    "Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)"

    I havent spent enough time to go over the entire page you posted, however, I cannot see anything that states the amount of money that religious and none-religious people donates. I know a charitable heart is more important than the amount donated, but it is also an important concern.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2026)
    Well many Conservative Christians disagree with you. There are quite a number of passages which make it clear that women and men are not 'equal' in the secular, modern sense of the word.



    Again, it cannot possibly be as black and white as you suggest, otherwise the Anglican community (along with most other denominations) would not be arguing over this.



    That's just due to your own ignorance and homophobia.
    Which passages would these be? I've never read one. They are going on the fact Jesus didn't pick women as his disciples. I am of the persuasion that he didn't pick women because he couldn't, it was just entirely unacceptable. Furthermore when he could choose women to do fundamental jobs he did; for instance Mary is the most hailed person in the bible next to Jesus. Then you have the fact the first people he chose to show himself to after resurrection were women, in a time when female testimony was worthless.

    Nothing is every black and white enough for the anglican community, it could say 'Gay sex is wrong, you should not be gay' and they would try and find a way around it using another part of the bible.

    It's hardly due to my ignorance and homophobia that I don't know gay people who have only ever had 1 partner in their entire lives. I know gay people who have had steady relationships but i've never known any of them to keep the same partner. I doubt you know any gay people that wait until they are married and then stay married for the entireity of their lives.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funkypish)
    You do realise that only 4% of America terms themselves 'atheist' don't you? This 4% is also highly likely to be among the educated group and will therefore not be involved in crime nearly as much. It hardly proves anything...
    Lol. Ok, then.

    For your information, the figure is actually 12%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Usar)
    I do not consider the words "**** off" "are" insulting. :rolleyes: Don't deliberately be so dense.
    You hardly have any decency, do you?

    (Original post by Usar)
    If it's so obvious, why do you feel the need to "point out?" No one's agreeing with you.
    I think you are talking to yourself, in fact no one is agreeing with you.

    (Original post by Usar)
    And, let's assume (wrongly) that I was trolling - considering when you posted, people were discussing things, obviously I would have failed in my mission. What have you achieved by this? You obviously don't have anything better to do - you're not doing your stereotype any good.
    What have I achieved? To point out you made an epic fail post maybe?:confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ~|Shock|~)
    So lets stop the argument, "Statisitcs dont lie, but we can lie with statistics". I am hardly suprised to see religious people are generally more generous. To simplify this, Religious people do rights and wrongs, Athiest people do rights and wrongs too. A Religious people may find 1000 stats to "prove" that they are "better" (but so can an atheist) which makes the entire argument meaningless.

    It is also not hard to find flaws in the stats you put up,

    "Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)"

    I havent spent enough time to go over the entire page you posted, however, I cannot see anything that states the amount of money that religious and none-religious people donates. I know a charitable heart is more important than the amount donated, but it is also an important concern.
    The fact of the matter is the charitableness of religious people is reason enough to keep religion around and shut people up when they use the 'evilness of religion' argument to justify getting rid of it, which is just ridiculous. Religious people generally give a lot more as well, around 9% of Chrisitans give 10% of all their earnings to charity.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.