For those who believe that homosexuality is genetic (3 Viewers)

[moll.]

Agree with your post, although why would you want to believe in Buddhism? It's the same 'don't question this' crap that every religion is based upon. I think that many people give Buddhism a free ride because they don't believe that it has caused any problems. Well, Japan in World War II carried out some pretty atrocious crimes. Also, they seem to love the totalitarianism - what with the Dalai Lama and what not...

Japanese militarism was primarily born out their Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. Emperor- and ancestor-worship is a uniquely Shinto belief, not Buddhist, as is Japanese racism and the bushido code.
True, the Dalai Lama before his exile was yet another theocratic dictator in Tibet. But keep it in perspective. A single theocratic dictator for Buddhism, compared with the dozens that exist for most other belief systems, is a damned good effort.
Although events on Ceylon may soon make the count go up.

 

[kaz1]

I said it was a generalisation, wanker.

So did I brack man.

 

[iNegro]

So did I brack man.

Fair enough.

 

[Durga]

Japanese militarism was primarily born out their Shinto beliefs, not Buddhist. Emperor- and ancestor-worship is a uniquely Shinto belief, not Buddhist, as is Japanese racism and the bushido code.
True, the Dalai Lama before his exile was yet another theocratic dictator in Tibet. But keep it in perspective. A single theocratic dictator for Buddhism, compared with the dozens that exist for most other belief systems, is a damned good effort.
Although events on Ceylon may soon make the count go up.

Sorry about the misinformation concerning the Japanese in WWII.

It shouldn't make a difference how many theocratic dictators a religion has had...Buddhism is still just another religion with the unarguable principles, the closed mindedness, and the dream of living after death.

 

[moll.]

Sorry about the misinformation concerning the Japanese in WWII.

It shouldn't make a difference how many theocratic dictators a religion has had...Buddhism is still just another religion with the unarguable principles, the closed mindedness, and the dream of living after death.

But it does make a difference.
You profess a hatred for religions and their closed mindedness, and yet you seem to be viewing the world through a black and white lens, rather than as the grayscale it really is. Moral absolutism is the main problem that you fight. And yet you also help to perpetuate it.
If a child comes home with a mark of 80 on their test when the average was 65, do you berate them for not getting 100, or congratualte them and actively encourage even greater effort on their part?

 

[Durga]

But it does make a difference.
You profess a hatred for religions and their closed mindedness, and yet you seem to be viewing the world through a black and white lens, rather than as the grayscale it really is. Moral absolutism is the main problem that you fight. And yet you also help to perpetuate it.
If a child comes home with a mark of 80 on their test when the average was 65, do you berate them for not getting 100, or congratualte them and actively encourage even greater effort on their part?

Oh yes, I'm the one viewing the world through a lens! I respect the fact that people are entitled to freedom of religion, I am not trying to take that away. I think that politics should be completely and clinically secular, although I also think people should actively question their faith, and research what they actually believe in. It is also disgusting the way people 'indoctrinate' their children.

In regards to your analogy, I would congratulate them and encourage them...your point being?

 

[moll.]

Oh yes, I'm the one viewing the world through a lens! I respect the fact that people are entitled to freedom of religion, I am not trying to take that away. I think that politics should be completely and clinically secular, although I also think people should actively question their faith, and research what they actually believe in. It is also disgusting the way people 'indoctrinate' their children.

In regards to your analogy, I would congratulate them and encourage them...your point being?

My point being that you're not doing that at all. Your berating Buddhism for it's imperfect track record, when by any objective, humanist standard it and many other Eastern religions have an exceptionally clean (and bloodless) record in comparison to the Abrahamic and other religions.
Even atheism is not without it's blemishes. The overzealous application of the atheist clause in communist countries has often led to the suffering and even death of many holymen and thier flocks for their refusal to publicly part with their beliefs. Then there's the often misguided and disastorous interpretations of Darwinism which have arisen over the past 150 years. Yes, Darwinism and atheism are undoubtedly seperate doctrines; but they also share a very strong bond, much like creationism and theism do.

 

[Malfoy-Sama]

stop discussing why these people are fags (mental disease, to be interesting), and start discussing how these people can be saved/cured!!!!!

=D

 

[Durga]

My point being that you're not doing that at all. Your berating Buddhism for it's imperfect track record, when by any objective, humanist standard it and many other Eastern religions have an exceptionally clean (and bloodless) record in comparison to the Abrahamic and other religions.
Even atheism is not without it's blemishes. The overzealous application of the atheist clause in communist countries has often led to the suffering and even death of many holymen and thier flocks for their refusal to publicly part with their beliefs. Then there's the often misguided and disastorous interpretations of Darwinism which have arisen over the past 150 years. Yes, Darwinism and atheism are undoubtedly seperate doctrines; but they also share a very strong bond, much like creationism and theism do.

I am not berating Buddhism because of its imperfect track record, I am berating it because it is dogmatic!

Oh come on, enough with the "OMG, but wasn't Hitler an atheist!??" Hitler was also a vegetarian, so by your utterly impeccable logic we should now profess that all vegetarians are genocidal, authoritarian despots? No, we shouldn't because the fact that he was atheist (and this is debatable, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) had very little to do with his demagogy. The fact was Hitler was a disgusting morally inept individual.

And in reference to your thoughts on the misapplications of Darwinian principles, now called Social Darwinism, science is a morally neutral area. It is discovery in its most basic form. It can be used for good, and for evil, and is therefore a double edged sword. There is no way we can predict what we discover, and therefore the misapplication of scientific discoveries are not to be blamed upon science itself, rather the being who decided to misapply it.

EDIT: Explain how Darwinian principles and atheism are doctrines.

 

[Titburger]

stop discussing why these people are fags (mental disease, to be interesting), and start discussing how these people can be saved/cured!!!!!

=D

I would call you a cunt but it seems you possess neither the warmth or depth

 

[Durga]

I would call you a cunt but it seems you possess neither the warm or depth

LOL! I think just flat out ignoring this guy is the way to go, considering he seems to be ignoring pages and pages of our arguments against his position.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

stop discussing why these people are fags (mental disease, to be interesting), and start discussing how these people can be saved/cured!!!!!

=D

you need a cure? bend over and i'll save you.

 

[iNegro]

stop discussing why these people are fags (mental disease, to be interesting), and start discussing how these people can be saved/cured!!!!!

=D

I laugh at your derranged mind.

 

[Malfoy-Sama]

I laugh at your derranged mind.

hehehehehe

i(dontlike)Negros neither.



they will be the next ones to go

=D

 

[moll.]

I am not berating Buddhism because of its imperfect track record, I am berating it because it is dogmatic!

Oh come on, enough with the "OMG, but wasn't Hitler an atheist!??" Hitler was also a vegetarian, so by your utterly impeccable logic we should now profess that all vegetarians are genocidal, authoritarian despots? No, we shouldn't because the fact that he was atheist (and this is debatable, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) had very little to do with his demagogy. The fact was Hitler was a disgusting morally inept individual.

I never mentioned Hitler. Learn to read.
Besides which, he was just carrying out thinly-veiled "scientific" anti-Semetism, based upon nothing but Christian mythology and tradition. That wasn't what I was talking about at all.
What I'm talking about when I mentioned the negetive effects of Darwinism was that this was then used as a scientific justification for slavery, racism and murder, specifically in relation to Africans, but also towards Southern and Eastern Asians. It was OK for the Europeans to colonise and subjugate these areas, because they were just carrying out the next step in evolution and the survival of the "fittest".
Need I point out that slavery's most vocal critics were devout Christians, who saw it as being against their faith?

And in reference to your thoughts on the misapplications of Darwinian principles, now called Social Darwinism, science is a morally neutral area. It is discovery in its most basic form. It can be used for good, and for evil, and is therefore a double edged sword. There is no way we can predict what we discover, and therefore the misapplication of scientific discoveries are not to be blamed upon science itself, rather the being who decided to misapply it.

And yet you have no qualms holding the slightest transgression of a religous man as evidence that his faith is inherently wrong and immoral. Interesting.

EDIT: Explain how Darwinian principles and atheism are doctrines.

A doctrine is simply a branch of teaching. Just because there is no central figure nor scripture involved in either, does not mean they are not doctrines in their own right.
I think you may confusing doctrines with dogmatism, kiddo.

EDIT: Actually, I suppose Darwinism does have a central figure a scripture. Meh.

 

[Durga]

I never mentioned Hitler. Learn to read.
Besides which, he was just carrying out thinly-veiled "scientific" anti-Semetism, based upon nothing but Christian mythology and tradition. That wasn't what I was talking about at all.
What I'm talking about when I mentioned the negetive effects of Darwinism was that this was then used as a scientific justification for slavery, racism and murder, specifically in relation to Africans, but also towards Southern and Eastern Asians. It was OK for the Europeans to colonise and subjugate these areas, because they were just carrying out the next step in evolution and the survival of the "fittest".
Need I point out that slavery's most vocal critics were devout Christians, who saw it as being against their faith?

You may not have mentioned Hitler specifically, but

The overzealous application of the atheist clause in communist countries has often led to the suffering and even death of many holymen and thier flocks for their refusal to publicly part with their beliefs.

hints at Hitler quite obviously, no? If you disagree, I suppose Stalin would be another figure that it is descriptive of.

Once again, I repeat that science is morally neutral, and should not be blamed for its misapplications, rather the group or person who decides to misapply the discoveries it brings.

And yet you have no qualms holding the slightest transgression of a religous man as evidence that his faith is inherently wrong and immoral. Interesting.

I do not believe in the possibility of a religion being 'correct' as they all lack and evidence to favour their religion over others. So yes, I hold it that someone who is religious, is instantly wrong (with respect to their views on religion). But I do not, and did not ever, instantly call them immoral. If they are preaching their doctrine like Name_Taken was over in 'Homosexuality in Australia,' and when evidence is presented they still continue peering at the world through a Bronze Age monocle, then that is when I believe they are wrong and immoral - when they fail to change their position because of no other reason than 'faith.'

A doctrine is simply a branch of teaching. Just because there is no central figure nor scripture involved in either, does not mean they are not doctrines in their own right.
I think you may confusing doctrines with dogmatism, kiddo.

EDIT: Actually, I suppose Darwinism does have a central figure a scripture. Meh.

Well, kiddo, you might be simplifying the definition of doctrine a little too much. The definition of doctrine is:

a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

Notice 'fact of life' is not mentioned there, merely belief of the world. And look at the examples! Of all the possible examples they could have chosen - not Darwinism, not atheism - but Catholicism! I wonder why...

 

[moll.]

You may not have mentioned Hitler specifically, but



hints at Hitler quite obviously, no? If you disagree, I suppose Stalin would be another figure that it is descriptive of.

No it doesn't hint at Hitler at all. Learn some history. Hitler wasn't a Communist.
And yes, I was reffering to Stalin, as well as Mao, Lenin, Kim Il-Sung and others. All of them were overzealous in applying the atheist clause of the Communist Manifesto, which has led to the suffering, imprisonment and death of countless holymen and believers.
Now, to clarify, I'm not blaming the tens of million dead in the Great Leap Forward and the Russian collectivisation effort upon atheism or the atheist clause. They died because of the implications of economic and political decisions which had nothing to do with religion.
What I am blaming them for is the direct and unequivocal suppression of religion (and the suffering which arose from this) as a result of Marx's rant against religion in his Manifesto. Do you think that Falun Gong would have been suppressed if he hadn't mentioned religion? Or that 28 bishops and 1200 Orthodox priests would have been executed in the first five years of Soviet Russia if he hadn't called religion the "opium of the people"?

Once again, I repeat that science is morally neutral, and should not be blamed for its misapplications, rather the group or person who decides to misapply the discoveries it brings.

And once again, I repeat that religion is just as open to interpretation as the results of science, and that any problems which arise should be blamed upon the practitioner, not the ideology they profess.

I do not believe in the possibility of a religion being 'correct' as they all lack and evidence to favour their religion over others. So yes, I hold it that someone who is religious, is instantly wrong (with respect to their views on religion). But I do not, and did not ever, instantly call them immoral. If they are preaching their doctrine like Name_Taken was over in 'Homosexuality in Australia,' and when evidence is presented they still continue peering at the world through a Bronze Age monocle, then that is when I believe they are wrong and immoral - when they fail to change their position because of no other reason than 'faith.'

You think that just yelling at them and calling them wrong is going to make them change? People will only start questioning their beliefs if presented with a reasonable, unbiased and unemotional argument against them. Sure, you can think that all religious people are moronic, misguided fools. But don't tell them that. They and the conversation will just retreat to childlike insults and bigotry, and both sides will walk away having gained nothing except a belief that they'reeven more right than when they began.

Well, kiddo, you might be simplifying the definition of doctrine a little too much. The definition of doctrine is:

a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

Notice 'fact of life' is not mentioned there, merely belief of the world. And look at the examples! Of all the possible examples they could have chosen - not Darwinism, not atheism - but Catholicism! I wonder why...

I like how you selectively chose to ignore the other entries in dictionary.com as to what "doctrine" means, as they did not suit your argument. Nice try buddy, but I think you'll find that I was right.

doc·trine

   /ˈdɒk

trɪn/ Show Spelled[dok-trin] Show IPA
–noun1.a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[Durga]

No it doesn't hint at Hitler at all. Learn some history. Hitler wasn't a Communist.
And yes, I was reffering to Stalin, as well as Mao, Lenin, Kim Il-Sung and others. All of them were overzealous in applying the atheist clause of the Communist Manifesto, which has led to the suffering, imprisonment and death of countless holymen and believers.

The parallels between the crimes of Hitler and those listed are undeniable. When I first saw your post Hitler came to my mind, but if you really feel like it, replace the name with Stalin, and vegetarian with Russian.

Now, to clarify, I'm not blaming the tens of million dead in the Great Leap Forward and the Russian collectivisation effort upon atheism or the atheist clause. They died because of the implications of economic and political decisions which had nothing to do with religion.What I am blaming them for is the direct and unequivocal suppression of religion (and the suffering which arose from this) as a result of Marx's rant against religion in his Manifesto. Do you think that Falun Gong would have been suppressed if he hadn't mentioned religion? Or that 28 bishops and 1200 Orthodox priests would have been executed in the first five years of Soviet Russia if he hadn't called religion the "opium of the people"?

That phrase from Karl Marx is taken grotesquely out of context. Marx goes onto say that religion is a necessary solace for the poor, and if Stalin had read correctly, then maybe those priests would not have been executed. People who misquote Mark (such as you) are only aiding the view that Marx was criticising religion.

And once again, I repeat that religion is just as open to interpretation as the results of science, and that any problems which arise should be blamed upon the practitioner, not the ideology they profess.

What never does cease to surprise me is the extent to which the pious can reinterpret their texts. While you could draw that parallel between religion and science, there are too many cases of religion giving direct instruction on what to do in specific cases. A great example is Leviticus...the only reason that the laws contained are reinterpreted is because not enough people actually knew them in the first place. So I do not believe that is a sufficient explanation for the oppression of women, the stoning that takes place, etc.

You think that just yelling at them and calling them wrong is going to make them change? People will only start questioning their beliefs if presented with a reasonable, unbiased and unemotional argument against them. Sure, you can think that all religious people are moronic, misguided fools. But don't tell them that. They and the conversation will just retreat to childlike insults and bigotry, and both sides will walk away having gained nothing except a belief that they'reeven more right than when they began.

I never said that yelling at them and calling them wrong is going to make them change.

I like how you selectively chose to ignore the other entries in dictionary.com as to what "doctrine" means, as they did not suit your argument. Nice try buddy, but I think you'll find that I was right.

Note the examples as well, in all of the definitions. Not one scientific theory/law? Hmm...

 

[moll.]

The parallels between the crimes of Hitler and those listed are undeniable. When I first saw your post Hitler came to my mind, but if you really feel like it, replace the name with Stalin, and vegetarian with Russian.

.. and your analogy with a more relevant one.
Honestly, are you even reading what I'm writing anymore? Your vegetarian/Hitler metaphor is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

That phrase from Karl Marx is taken grotesquely out of context. Marx goes onto say that religion is a necessary solace for the poor, and if Stalin had read correctly, then maybe those priests would not have been executed. People who misquote Mark (such as you) are only aiding the view that Marx was criticising religion.

Whether he was criticising religion is irrelevant. What he wrote can and was taken as a criticism of religion by his supporters, and as such they carried out unspeakable crimes against religious persons in the name of atheism. This is a simple fact.
Now, taking this back to my original point, I have therefore shown that there have also been horrific crimes committed in the name of atheism, just as in the name of most (if not all) other religions.

What never does cease to surprise me is the extent to which the pious can reinterpret their texts. While you could draw that parallel between religion and science, there are too many cases of religion giving direct instruction on what to do in specific cases. A great example is Leviticus...the only reason that the laws contained are reinterpreted is because not enough people actually knew them in the first place. So I do not believe that is a sufficient explanation for the oppression of women, the stoning that takes place, etc.

There are also counter-orders given to those direct instructions, which in turn leaves it up to the individual as to which orders to carry out. Examples of these counter-orders include:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Ephesians 2:15[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Hebrews 8:12-13[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." [SIZE=-1]13[/SIZE]In speaking of "a new covenant," he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]John 13:34-35 [/FONT]I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. [SIZE=-1]35[/SIZE] By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

I never said that yelling at them and calling them wrong is going to make them change.

But you still do it.

Note the examples as well, in all of the definitions. Not one scientific theory/law? Hmm...

Oh but of course! When they say "example", really all they mean is "the only possible instance", rather than "the obvious instance"! It's so simple now!

 

[Durga]

Whether he was criticising religion is irrelevant. What he wrote can and was taken as a criticism of religion by his supporters, and as such they carried out unspeakable crimes against religious persons in the name of atheism. This is a simple fact.
Now, taking this back to my original point, I have therefore shown that there have also been horrific crimes committed in the name of atheism, just as in the name of most (if not all) other religions.

The relevancy is central to the argument! Otherwise it's just a case of quote mining whatever you want so that you can justify whatever you want, in the name of whatever you want.

There are also counter-orders given to those direct instructions, which in turn leaves it up to the individual as to which orders to carry out. Examples of these counter-orders include:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Ephesians 2:15[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Hebrews 8:12-13[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." [SIZE=-1]13[/SIZE]In speaking of "a new covenant," he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]John 13:34-35 [/FONT]I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. [SIZE=-1]35[/SIZE] By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Their may be counter orders, but you have missed my point. The Theory of Evolution is not a doctrine in the sense that it just a fact, a happening of life. It doesn't profess to know, or help you know, what you need to do to get into Heaven, it's merely something we discovered about our existence. Religious dogma explicitly condemns certain actions, and commands they be punished barbarically. Evolution does no such thing, and I don't see why you are drawing parallels between the two.

But you still do it.

I tell them they're wrong and provide reasons why when they start to shout out their religious drivel, condemning and condoning various actions for no other reason then because it's what God ordered.

Oh but of course! When they say "example", really all they mean is "the only possible instance", rather than "the obvious instance"! It's so simple now!

I do not believe evolution is a doctrine in the same sense that gravity is not a doctrine.

Atheism has no central dogma or practices that it commands - it is merely a belief by an individual that does not influence their actions. Or, you could subscribe to this ill-belief of Atheism as a doctrine: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_Doctrine