|
Post by clusium on Jun 30, 2017 22:59:05 GMT
You seem to be forgetting whom you are disagreeing with: Richard Dawkins!! The man who wrote The God Delusion, 10 years ago. He wrote that book just a few years after 9/11/01. Now, he's saying the best way to oppose Muslim fundamentalism is with Christianity (keep in mind, that he is still an atheist). You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Richard Dawkins is some type of atheist pope. I find him to be like many of those religious fanatics he regularly debates,rude, bombastic and ultimately intolerant. I don't much care for him or his opinions,and now that your straw man has just been incinerated Would you care to address this rather simple equation? Less religious adherents around the world leads to less religious extremism around the world. I do not know where atheists get the idea that religious people equate Dawkins (or Hitchens, or Harris, or any of the atheist writers in recent years) equals the Pope for atheists. He was, however, the man who's book, The God Delusion, pushed the atheist agenda to the forefront, in recent years. I do not know what "straw man" I made, that you are referring to. I simply referred you to Dawkins, after you referenced Hitler's views on Islam. But, back to your own straw man argument: God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill. It was enshrined in religious beliefs, BEFORE the State made it official. While it is possible that less people becoming religious may lead to less extremist, fanatical acts, it may also lead to less charitable acts too, as it is religion, which first & foremost, teaches us all that we are connected & thereby, help & serve one another in the world.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 30, 2017 23:18:15 GMT
At least we don't have to worry about this thread getting derailed by Godwin's law.
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jun 30, 2017 23:19:01 GMT
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Richard Dawkins is some type of atheist pope. I find him to be like many of those religious fanatics he regularly debates,rude, bombastic and ultimately intolerant. I don't much care for him or his opinions,and now that your straw man has just been incinerated Would you care to address this rather simple equation? Less religious adherents around the world leads to less religious extremism around the world. I do not know where atheists get the idea that religious people equate Dawkins (or Hitchens, or Harris, or any of the atheist writers in recent years) equals the Pope for atheists. He was, however, the man who's book, The God Delusion, pushed the atheist agenda to the forefront, in recent years. I do not know what "straw man" I made, that you are referring to. I simply referred you to Dawkins, after you referenced Hitler's views on Islam. But, back to your own straw man argument: God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill. It was enshrined in religious beliefs, BEFORE the State made it official. While it is possible that less people becoming religious may lead to less extremist, fanatical acts, it may also lead to less charitable acts too, as it is religion, which first & foremost, teaches us all that we are connected & thereby, help & serve one another in the world. Atheists are not a unifed group with a common belief set. The only have one thing in common their lack of belief in a God. I'm not beholden to Dawkins or his views, he has no authority over me and I simply disagree with him. If you think outlawing killing was a concept that came in with the bible you are mistaken,several societies had laws against killing long before the bible was even a thought,the golden rule covered this a thousand years before the bible existed. I don't except that religion makes people more charitable,in my experience it makes them less tolerant of others and far more judgemental.And even if religious people were more charitable we can still teach the views of caring and helping those in need to our children without ever mentioning God or Jesus. I believe the benefits of religion were once very real,charity,loving of others being taught and preached in socities with very few rules. However modern socities have successfully integrated those views into the general population without religion. So religion is largely becoming irrelevant to most people,what we don't need to do is reinvigorate Christianity because for all the good things it's done it comes with some very heavy baggage in regards to it's past actions.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 30, 2017 23:31:15 GMT
I do not know where atheists get the idea that religious people equate Dawkins (or Hitchens, or Harris, or any of the atheist writers in recent years) equals the Pope for atheists. He was, however, the man who's book, The God Delusion, pushed the atheist agenda to the forefront, in recent years. I do not know what "straw man" I made, that you are referring to. I simply referred you to Dawkins, after you referenced Hitler's views on Islam. But, back to your own straw man argument: God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill. It was enshrined in religious beliefs, BEFORE the State made it official. While it is possible that less people becoming religious may lead to less extremist, fanatical acts, it may also lead to less charitable acts too, as it is religion, which first & foremost, teaches us all that we are connected & thereby, help & serve one another in the world. Atheists are not a unifed group with a common belief set. The only have one thing in common their lack of belief in a God. I'm not beholden to Dawkins or his views, he has no authority over me and I simply disagree with him. If you think outlawing killing was a concept that came in with the bible you are mistaken,several societies had laws against killing long before the bible was even a thought,the golden rule covered this a thousand years before the bible existed. I don't except that religion makes people more charitable,in my experience it makes them less tolerant of others and far more judgemental.And even if religious people were more charitable we can still teach the views of caring and helping those in need to our children without ever mentioning God or Jesus. I believe the benefits of religion were once very real,charity,loving of others being taught and preached in socities with very few rules. However modern socities have successfully integrated those views into the general population without religion. So religion is largely becoming irrelevant to most people,what we don't need to do is reinvigorate Christianity because for all the good things it's done it comes with some very heavy baggage in regards to it's past actions. Did I say that the Bible first came from the Bible? I said that "God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill." I realize that Thou shalt not kill is in other religions too. Heck!! The Golden Rule is universal in most religions. Yes, modern secular societies have integrated views of charity into society. But, it was religion which taught them first (as you have already noted). If secular society finds acts of charity to be right & beneficial, it is because they learned them from religion first.
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jun 30, 2017 23:42:50 GMT
Atheists are not a unifed group with a common belief set. The only have one thing in common their lack of belief in a God. I'm not beholden to Dawkins or his views, he has no authority over me and I simply disagree with him. If you think outlawing killing was a concept that came in with the bible you are mistaken,several societies had laws against killing long before the bible was even a thought,the golden rule covered this a thousand years before the bible existed. I don't except that religion makes people more charitable,in my experience it makes them less tolerant of others and far more judgemental.And even if religious people were more charitable we can still teach the views of caring and helping those in need to our children without ever mentioning God or Jesus. I believe the benefits of religion were once very real,charity,loving of others being taught and preached in socities with very few rules. However modern socities have successfully integrated those views into the general population without religion. So religion is largely becoming irrelevant to most people,what we don't need to do is reinvigorate Christianity because for all the good things it's done it comes with some very heavy baggage in regards to it's past actions. Did I say that the Bible first came from the Bible? I said that "God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill." I realize that Thou shalt not kill is in other religions too. Heck!! The Golden Rule is universal in most religions. Yes, modern secular societies have integrated views of charity into society. But, it was religion which taught them first (as you have already noted). If secular society finds acts of charity to be right & beneficial, it is because they learned them from religion first. The golden rule predates all known religions which is the point. Morality was here before religion existed and it will be here long after it dies out. Religion played a part in codifying some of human morality into law,however we don't need religion to teach us that any longer,it's time has passed. Now I'm sad to say religion divides more than unites,in short I believe it does more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 1, 2017 2:19:46 GMT
Atheists are not a unifed group with a common belief set. The only have one thing in common their lack of belief in a God. I'm not beholden to Dawkins or his views, he has no authority over me and I simply disagree with him. If you think outlawing killing was a concept that came in with the bible you are mistaken,several societies had laws against killing long before the bible was even a thought,the golden rule covered this a thousand years before the bible existed. I don't except that religion makes people more charitable,in my experience it makes them less tolerant of others and far more judgemental.And even if religious people were more charitable we can still teach the views of caring and helping those in need to our children without ever mentioning God or Jesus. I believe the benefits of religion were once very real,charity,loving of others being taught and preached in socities with very few rules. However modern socities have successfully integrated those views into the general population without religion. So religion is largely becoming irrelevant to most people,what we don't need to do is reinvigorate Christianity because for all the good things it's done it comes with some very heavy baggage in regards to it's past actions. Did I say that the Bible first came from the Bible? I said that "God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill." I realize that Thou shalt not kill is in other religions too. Heck!! The Golden Rule is universal in most religions. Yes, modern secular societies have integrated views of charity into society. But, it was religion which taught them first (as you have already noted). If secular society finds acts of charity to be right & beneficial, it is because they learned them from religion first. The Golden Rule is fundamental to our species survival. The vast majority of humans do not want to or like having to kill other humans. You can check out how many soldiers historically didn't fire on the enemy. Civil war era muskets were found with multiple shots in the barrel. You can attribute this to god if you like, but I see no reason to. It absolutely cannot be attributed to religion.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 2:53:41 GMT
Did I say that the Bible first came from the Bible? I said that "God Is the One Who Instituted the Commandment Thou shalt not kill." I realize that Thou shalt not kill is in other religions too. Heck!! The Golden Rule is universal in most religions. Yes, modern secular societies have integrated views of charity into society. But, it was religion which taught them first (as you have already noted). If secular society finds acts of charity to be right & beneficial, it is because they learned them from religion first. The golden rule predates all known religions which is the point. Morality was here before religion existed and it will be here long after it dies out. Religion played a part in codifying some of human morality into law,however we don't need religion to teach us that any longer,it's time has passed. Now I'm sad to say religion divides more than unites,in short I believe it does more harm than good. Religion has been with us since the earliest times humanity existed, & will continue to exist right up until humanity dies out. The reason for religious divisions is precisely because everyone disagrees on Who or What God Is. This includes atheist views, which says there is no God or gods at all.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 3:19:42 GMT
The golden rule predates all known religions which is the point. Morality was here before religion existed and it will be here long after it dies out. Religion played a part in codifying some of human morality into law,however we don't need religion to teach us that any longer,it's time has passed. Now I'm sad to say religion divides more than unites,in short I believe it does more harm than good. Religion has been with us since the earliest times humanity existed, & will continue to exist right up until humanity dies out. The reason for religious divisions is precisely because everyone disagrees on Who or What God Is. This includes atheist views, which says there is no God or gods at all. Okay, when you say humanity are you speaking only of Homo sapiens or of all human species? Because H. sapiens evolved around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. Do you have any evidence that religion is at least 200,000 years old or did you just make up a lie to make yourself feel better? If you're talking about the entire genus Homo then you need to show that religion has existed for at least two million years. So which is it?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 3:30:20 GMT
Religion has been with us since the earliest times humanity existed, & will continue to exist right up until humanity dies out. The reason for religious divisions is precisely because everyone disagrees on Who or What God Is. This includes atheist views, which says there is no God or gods at all. Okay, when you say humanity are you speaking only of Homo sapiens or of all human species? Because H. sapiens evolved around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. Do you have any evidence that religion is at least 200,000 years old or did you just make up a lie to make yourself feel better? If you're talking about the entire genus Homo then you need to show that religion has existed for at least two million years. So which is it? Timeline of Religion
Evolutionary Origin of Religions
Religion in the Ancient World
Earliest Evidence of Religious Beliefs
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 3:38:51 GMT
Why do you always provide links that disprove your own claims? The first link goes back ~42,000 years. The second goes back ~70,000 years with the caveat "A claim that evidence was found for Middle Paleolithic animal worship c 70,000 BCE (originating from the Tsodilo Hills in the African Kalahari desert) has been denied by the original investigators of the site." The third doesn't even go back as far as the first while the fourth repeats the claim in the second that has been discredited by the very people who first investigated the site. So, do you have anything that actually supports your claim?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 3:52:25 GMT
Why do you always provide links that disprove your own claims? The first link goes back ~42,000 years. The second goes back ~70,000 years with the caveat "A claim that evidence was found for Middle Paleolithic animal worship c 70,000 BCE (originating from the Tsodilo Hills in the African Kalahari desert) has been denied by the original investigators of the site." The third doesn't even go back as far as the first while the fourth repeats the claim in the second that has been discredited by the very people who first investigated the site. So, do you have anything that actually supports your claim? Prehistoric Religion
I tried to post about Gobekli Tepe on here too, but, the Wikipedia wouldn't stick on right.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 4:01:31 GMT
Why do you always provide links that disprove your own claims? The first link goes back ~42,000 years. The second goes back ~70,000 years with the caveat "A claim that evidence was found for Middle Paleolithic animal worship c 70,000 BCE (originating from the Tsodilo Hills in the African Kalahari desert) has been denied by the original investigators of the site." The third doesn't even go back as far as the first while the fourth repeats the claim in the second that has been discredited by the very people who first investigated the site. So, do you have anything that actually supports your claim? Prehistoric Religion
I tried to post about Gobekli Tepe on here too, but, the Wikipedia wouldn't stick on right. You have no clue what you are doing. Gobekli Tepe is, at most, 11,500 years old and the second link is the same as the second link in the previous post, the one that notes that the 70,000 year old claim has been discredited by the original investigators. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. That should require you to show that ancient members of the genus Homo were practicing religion two million years ago. However, I'm not even holding you to that rigorous a standard and am only asking for evidence that the earliest members of Homo sapiens were practicing religion 200,000 years ago. So far you haven't even come close. Why in the world would you even link to Gobekli Tepe when it's even more recent than any of the first four articles you linked? For the third time, do you have anything that supports the claim you made?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 4:07:34 GMT
Prehistoric Religion
I tried to post about Gobekli Tepe on here too, but, the Wikipedia wouldn't stick on right. You have no clue what you are doing. Gobekli Tepe is, at most, 11,500 years old and the second link is the same as the second link in the previous post, the one that notes that the 70,000 year old claim has been discredited by the original investigators. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. That should require you to show that ancient members of the genus Homo were practicing religion two million years ago. However, I'm not even holding you to that rigorous a standard and am only asking for evidence that the earliest members of Homo sapiens were practicing religion 200,000 years ago. So far you haven't even come close. Why in the world would you even link to Gobekli Tepe when it's even more recent than any of the first four articles you linked? For the third time, do you have anything that supports the claim you made?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:01:57 GMT
Why do you always provide links that disprove your own claims? The first link goes back ~42,000 years. The second goes back ~70,000 years with the caveat "A claim that evidence was found for Middle Paleolithic animal worship c 70,000 BCE (originating from the Tsodilo Hills in the African Kalahari desert) has been denied by the original investigators of the site." The third doesn't even go back as far as the first while the fourth repeats the claim in the second that has been discredited by the very people who first investigated the site. So, do you have anything that actually supports your claim? Prehistoric Religion
I tried to post about Gobekli Tepe on here too, but, the Wikipedia wouldn't stick on right. Are you going to support your claim, retract it, or run away?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 5:04:33 GMT
Prehistoric Religion
I tried to post about Gobekli Tepe on here too, but, the Wikipedia wouldn't stick on right. Are you going to support your claim, retract it, or run away? Homo Sapiens
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:08:18 GMT
Are you going to support your claim, retract it, or run away? Homo SapiensYou just post random articles with no care whether they are actually relevant or not. For the fifth time - do you have any evidence to support your claim?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 5:10:25 GMT
You just post random articles with no care whether they are actually relevant or not. For the fifth time - do you have any evidence to support your claim? I've posted several links already. You just dismissed them all. Now its your turn: Post something that shows that religion is relatively new in origin, regarding the history or prehistory of mankind.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 1, 2017 5:15:23 GMT
You just post random articles with no care whether they are actually relevant or not. For the fifth time - do you have any evidence to support your claim? I've posted several links already. You just dismissed them all. Now its your turn: Post something that shows that religion is relatively new in origin, regarding the history or prehistory of mankind. I dismissed them all because not a single one of them supported your claim. In fact, as is quite common with you, you provided links that disproved your own claim. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. Being extremely generous i am allowing humanity to be defined as only the species Homo sapiens rather than the entire genus Homo. So far, at best, you have only covered 20% of Homo sapiens existence. Why are you asking me to support a claim I never made and one which your own links supported anyway? YOUR OWN LINKS SHOW THAT RELIGION HAS ONLY EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE EXISTENCE OF HOMO SAPIENS. Do you understand it yet?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 5:21:30 GMT
I've posted several links already. You just dismissed them all. Now its your turn: Post something that shows that religion is relatively new in origin, regarding the history or prehistory of mankind. I dismissed them all because not a single one of them supported your claim. In fact, as is quite common with you, you provided links that disproved your own claim. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. Being extremely generous i am allowing humanity to be defined as only the species Homo sapiens rather than the entire genus Homo. So far, at best, you have only covered 20% of Homo sapiens existence. Why are you asking me to support a claim I never made and one which your own links supported anyway? YOUR OWN LINKS SHOW THAT RELIGION HAS ONLY EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE EXISTENCE OF HOMO SAPIENS. Do you understand it yet? How generous of you. What a guy. What do you think of this? Do you think that primitive Neanderthals would have had religious beliefs and advanced Homo Sapiens would not? neandertals.org/ritual.html
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 1, 2017 5:22:06 GMT
I've posted several links already. You just dismissed them all. Now its your turn: Post something that shows that religion is relatively new in origin, regarding the history or prehistory of mankind. I dismissed them all because not a single one of them supported your claim. In fact, as is quite common with you, you provided links that disproved your own claim. You claimed that religion is as old as humanity. Being extremely generous i am allowing humanity to be defined as only the species Homo sapiens rather than the entire genus Homo. So far, at best, you have only covered 20% of Homo sapiens existence. Why are you asking me to support a claim I never made and one which your own links supported anyway? YOUR OWN LINKS SHOW THAT RELIGION HAS ONLY EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE EXISTENCE OF HOMO SAPIENS. Do you understand it yet? They have all supported my claim. The earliest man followed religion.
|
|