Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
eisy22
Level 31
eisy22's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 2,151
Subtract from eisy22's ReputationAdd to eisy22's Reputation eisy22 taps Cortana eisy22 taps Cortana eisy22 taps Cortana eisy22 taps Cortana eisy22 taps Cortana
#21
04-27-2011
Default

going with vagrant on this one


McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#22
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
I just believe that all true faith is worthy of respect and that those on both sides of the discussion that attempt to discredit the other are overstepping their bounds as spirituality is such a personal and privately vested viewpoint.
Why exactly?

In spite of being perfectly fine if one chooses to have faith to drive one's own endeavors, privately; I don't think it holds that through objective review, anyone should be barred or rather, restrained from bluntly stating the obvious sentiment that faith-based reasoning is absurd.

Faith is subversive naturally, and to think that it should tolerated publicly, let alone condoned outright is a pretty ridiculous and arcane point of view I think.

Sounds like religious moderation to me, which is negligibly misconstrued as not the worst kind of religious view (although as seen above, it can very much be.)

Quote:
And for the record, I disagree with religious matters being the basis for political opinions as well and think that our whole system revolving around Judeo-Christian values is as criminal as your average atheist.
Compartmentalizing faith seems like an obvious contradiction to being religious, outright.

Quote:
I just really dislike when people dismiss things directly out of hand that they have never fully invested themselves into discovering.
So does any other reasonable and like-minded individual. Your digression though, that atheists are as much if not equally accountable as theists is just a serious marginalization misunderstanding. That's just simply not true.

Sure, everyone has seen the ignorant bigot atheist -- but that is like, a gross misallocation to say it's prevalent just as much as an average theist.

Quote:
I just want to advocate not falling victim to the sheep mentality that pervades among the educated community that commands you be atheistic or agnostic in order to move forward in academia.
Besides being I think, irrelevant to the discussion -- exactly how do you think progressing towards a non-belief based standard is not intrinsically stifling academia? What does faith-based reasoning contribute?

Quote:
I think quite a number of folks that post here view that as a requisite value set prior to attempting to achieve enlightenment
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Quote:
it's really just as much a borrowed sentiment as any for those that probably haven't ever evaluated theology on its own merits devoid of any preexisting biases or conclusions drawn seeking evidence to prove them as opposed to entering the venture as an empty slate.
That's a pretty bold claim that I'm sure fits a sum minority of people, but is otherwise horribly untrue. Where are you basing these assumptions?

Quote:
It is no coincidence that virtually every pseudo-intellectual despises those that hold spiritual values as if they have achieved enlightenment on the issue via association with those whose opinions they value.
Where are you getting this from? Don't get me wrong, I've seen these scarce instances of your observations but I think you're ironically "overstepping" your cause.

Last edited by McDevy; 04-27-2011 at 04:45 PM.
WicKeD ASSaSiN
The Dude Abides
WicKeD ASSaSiN's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Infinite Possibilities
Posts: 1,681
Subtract from WicKeD ASSaSiN's ReputationAdd to WicKeD ASSaSiN's Reputation WicKeD ASSaSiN is a novice
Send a message via AIM to WicKeD ASSaSiN
#23
04-27-2011
Default

Of course this thread attracts all the ignorant atheists. I can understand that lady's reaction if those were the exact words of Bill Nye; they do seem slightly provocative.

@Vagrant - What about people whose personal spiritual paths converge in one religion and they want to create a country to live under their own laws?


freak
#1 butt eater™
freak's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,606
Subtract from freak's ReputationAdd to freak's Reputation freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000 freak IS OVER 9000
#24
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingless View Post
I think people were getting mad that he was saying the Bible was incorrect, not that the Moon reflects light. This is Waco, Texas we are talking about here. They probably just got impatient and stormed off without understanding or interpreting the message fully.
that makes them incredibly dumb
Vagrant
OLD BLUE
Vagrant's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Smells like death
Posts: 5,178
Subtract from Vagrant's ReputationAdd to Vagrant's Reputation Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
#25
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
Why exactly?

In spite of being perfectly fine if one chooses to have faith to drive one's own endeavors, privately; I don't think it holds that through objective review, anyone should be barred or rather, restrained from bluntly stating the obvious sentiment that faith-based reasoning is absurd.

Faith is subversive naturally, and to think that it should tolerated publicly, let alone condoned outright is a pretty ridiculous and arcane point of view I think.

Sounds like religious moderation to me, which is negligibly misconstrued as not the worst kind of religious view (although as seen above, it can very much be.)



Compartmentalizing faith seems like an obvious contradiction to being religious, outright.



So does any other reasonable and like-minded individual. Your digression though, that atheists are as much if not equally accountable as theists is just a serious marginalization misunderstanding. That's just simply not true.

Sure, everyone has seen the ignorant bigot atheist -- but that is like, a gross misallocation to say it's prevalent just as much as an average theist.



Besides being I think, irrelevant to the discussion -- exactly how do you think progressing towards a non-belief based standard is not intrinsically stifling academia? What does faith-based reasoning contribute?



You say that like it's a bad thing.



That's a pretty bold claim that I'm sure fits a sum minority of people, but is otherwise horribly untrue. Where are you basing these assumptions?



Where are you getting this from? Don't get me wrong, I've seen these scarce instances of your observations but I think you're ironically "overstepping" your cause.
I have virtually no desire to engage in any form of long winded debate regarding this issue as I think the sentiment with which I posted was pretty self evident, but since you seem to be genuinely interested in an articulation of my viewpoint, I will try to provide at least a bit of further detail regarding why I feel the way that I do. It must be prefaced by saying that the lion's share of my post was dedicated to my observations here, on this forum, regarding the perpetuation of the sentiment that Atheism represents a state of neutrality when the form expressed here is very much an aggressive brand of narrow mindedness that attempts to qualify any religious values as useless and elementary. I know personally of MANY posters here that hold religious values that are literally afraid to espouse them due to the overwhelming negativity they would face upon that revelation.

There are many of your comments that I do not understand contextually as relevant to the portions of my post that you quoted. If you wish to clarify some of those sentiments then I will attempt to answer them. In particular, the reference to compartmentalizing faith and the marginalization comment. I really don't know what exactly you were trying to get out there, so if you want me to answer it needs to be in a more palatable format for me. If it's my ignorance, then humor me. If it's your vagueness, then clarify.

As for your other queries, faith based reasoning and academia are not conflicting viewpoints in every form of higher learning. In fact, I could argue that as an English major I would be remiss in my education to not have a functioning knowledge of the religious disposition of the authors of works which I am assigned to evaluate. Now, that does not mean that I inherently have to hold those same viewpoints but my contention is that MANY atheists only verse themselves in religion as a means to discredit rather than embrace. Again, it's not a pervasive statement meaning that the only reason atheists are atheists is because they haven't properly explored their options, but it does mean to me that the possibility exists that many of the vigilant atheists you see are no more educated in the religious texts than the people they criticize for their faith. In my estimation, in order to establish an adversarial opinion you need to be as familiar if not more familiar with the cause with which offends you as the very advocates themselves. This step in due diligence that is neglected represents a disconnect for me.

Secondly, you attempt to argue that there exist less uninformed and pretentious atheists than ignorant religious folks and by percentages I am none too sure how you can attempt to prove or disprove that. I don't see that as a viable contribution to the discussion. It presents a fallacy of unreasonable expectations to provide any empirical data to evaluate the general disposition of atheists vs. theists. My observations were obviously of a personal experience variety as opposed to any sweeping claims of this being unquestionably the way things are.

Additionally, it IS a bad thing that people see the need to accept a certain viewpoint prior to attempting to achieve enlightenment. It derails the entire process. Your mistake exists in your interpretation of enlightenment it seems. I do not speak of the theoretical or philosophical form of enlightenment as advocated by atheistic philosophers that value only reason and logistical conclusions, but rather refer to enlightenment as the personal venture that one takes to find their personal truth and what speaks to them emotionally and spiritually and still manages to pass through their filter of what is a reasonable explanation for the composition of the world as we know it and the circumstances under which humanity was derived. Philosophers in my estimation provide guidelines and formulaic processes to arrive at the same conclusions they have reached and many of these men were just as self serving, arrogant, and deceptive as your average religious experts. It still represents a study in the reasons you shouldn't believe as much as it does as an advocate of their viewpoint.

In regards to what I am basing my opinion on, it is mainly personal experience with people between the ages of 16-22 that are just starting to evade the influence of their parents and are just now starting to find their way in regards to what they really believe. I think that far too often people in this age group are subjected to the group think that you cannot progress in the eyes of your peers without first abandoning your religious views at the door. I think that view is perpetuated here to such a degree that when I see it happen, I want to represent myself as an advocate of free religious thinking and if those that read it respect my intellect then they too can take their own spiritual journey to arrive at whatever conclusion awaits them without fear of peer influenced persecution. If they too arrive at the conclusion that atheism is what makes the most sense to them, then far be it for me to deny them that conclusion. That is my most basis point. Instead of poisoning the well for everyone with heavy handed dismissal of faith based or religious based conclusions, why not let the individual decide what is true to them? The truth is that we simply do not know if God exists and can neither prove or disprove it. The journey should be made by the individual.

I am now reminded why I do not venture into this kind of posting more often as this just killed about half an hour.
Vagrant
OLD BLUE
Vagrant's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Smells like death
Posts: 5,178
Subtract from Vagrant's ReputationAdd to Vagrant's Reputation Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield Vagrant finally popped his Bubble Shield
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
#26
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN View Post
@Vagrant - What about people whose personal spiritual paths converge in one religion and they want to create a country to live under their own laws?
Provided they can do this without compromising the practices of the people indigenous to the region in which they plan to settle, will not use their religion to persecute or otherwise harm another individual, and do not actively attempt to convert everyone around them in surrounding countries then by all means.

However, the probability of that being able to happen is virtually nil as that would likely devolve in the same way as many utopian experiments have in the past and by their own perceived superiority fall victim to the temptation to spread their values to others or persecute from inside their borders.

And since the United States has no official religion, the idea that we should be practicing Judeo-Christian ethics is a laughable sentiment. It simply represents most accurately the average value system that even many atheists would feel uncomfortable in abandoning as the lines between personal ethics and religious practices have become blurred after centuries of living in accordance with those world views.
RVideo
Ask Z for $50
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 34,969
Subtract from RVideo's ReputationAdd to RVideo's Reputation RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000 RVideo IS OVER 9000
#27
04-27-2011
Default

You guys do realize that this happened five years ago, right?
Cynic
Bored Stiff
Cynic's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,913
Subtract from Cynic's ReputationAdd to Cynic's Reputation Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000 Cynic IS OVER 9000
#28
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVideo View Post
You guys do realize that this happened five years ago, right?
alert the authorities we've discovered the past

dat status
whateva mang
dat status's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,072
Subtract from dat status's ReputationAdd to dat status's Reputation dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000 dat status IS OVER 9000
#29
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
I have virtually no desire to engage in any form of long winded debate regarding this issue as I think the sentiment with which I posted was pretty self evident, but since you seem to be genuinely interested in an articulation of my viewpoint, I will try to provide at least a bit of further detail regarding why I feel the way that I do. It must be prefaced by saying that the lion's share of my post was dedicated to my observations here, on this forum, regarding the perpetuation of the sentiment that Atheism represents a state of neutrality when the form expressed here is very much an aggressive brand of narrow mindedness that attempts to qualify any religious values as useless and elementary. I know personally of MANY posters here that hold religious values that are literally afraid to espouse them due to the overwhelming negativity they would face upon that revelation.

There are many of your comments that I do not understand contextually as relevant to the portions of my post that you quoted. If you wish to clarify some of those sentiments then I will attempt to answer them. In particular, the reference to compartmentalizing faith and the marginalization comment. I really don't know what exactly you were trying to get out there, so if you want me to answer it needs to be in a more palatable format for me. If it's my ignorance, then humor me. If it's your vagueness, then clarify.

As for your other queries, faith based reasoning and academia are not conflicting viewpoints in every form of higher learning. In fact, I could argue that as an English major I would be remiss in my education to not have a functioning knowledge of the religious disposition of the authors of works which I am assigned to evaluate. Now, that does not mean that I inherently have to hold those same viewpoints but my contention is that MANY atheists only verse themselves in religion as a means to discredit rather than embrace. Again, it's not a pervasive statement meaning that the only reason atheists are atheists is because they haven't properly explored their options, but it does mean to me that the possibility exists that many of the vigilant atheists you see are no more educated in the religious texts than the people they criticize for their faith. In my estimation, in order to establish an adversarial opinion you need to be as familiar if not more familiar with the cause with which offends you as the very advocates themselves. This step in due diligence that is neglected represents a disconnect for me.

Secondly, you attempt to argue that there exist less uninformed and pretentious atheists than ignorant religious folks and by percentages I am none too sure how you can attempt to prove or disprove that. I don't see that as a viable contribution to the discussion. It presents a fallacy of unreasonable expectations to provide any empirical data to evaluate the general disposition of atheists vs. theists. My observations were obviously of a personal experience variety as opposed to any sweeping claims of this being unquestionably the way things are.

Additionally, it IS a bad thing that people see the need to accept a certain viewpoint prior to attempting to achieve enlightenment. It derails the entire process. Your mistake exists in your interpretation of enlightenment it seems. I do not speak of the theoretical or philosophical form of enlightenment as advocated by atheistic philosophers that value only reason and logistical conclusions, but rather refer to enlightenment as the personal venture that one takes to find their personal truth and what speaks to them emotionally and spiritually and still manages to pass through their filter of what is a reasonable explanation for the composition of the world as we know it and the circumstances under which humanity was derived. Philosophers in my estimation provide guidelines and formulaic processes to arrive at the same conclusions they have reached and many of these men were just as self serving, arrogant, and deceptive as your average religious experts. It still represents a study in the reasons you shouldn't believe as much as it does as an advocate of their viewpoint.

In regards to what I am basing my opinion on, it is mainly personal experience with people between the ages of 16-22 that are just starting to evade the influence of their parents and are just now starting to find their way in regards to what they really believe. I think that far too often people in this age group are subjected to the group think that you cannot progress in the eyes of your peers without first abandoning your religious views at the door. I think that view is perpetuated here to such a degree that when I see it happen, I want to represent myself as an advocate of free religious thinking and if those that read it respect my intellect then they too can take their own spiritual journey to arrive at whatever conclusion awaits them without fear of peer influenced persecution. If they too arrive at the conclusion that atheism is what makes the most sense to them, then far be it for me to deny them that conclusion. That is my most basis point. Instead of poisoning the well for everyone with heavy handed dismissal of faith based or religious based conclusions, why not let the individual decide what is true to them? The truth is that we simply do not know if God exists and can neither prove or disprove it. The journey should be made by the individual.

I am now reminded why I do not venture into this kind of posting more often as this just killed about half an hour.
I cant believe you just typed up this essay of an answer. I didnt read it but kudos to you
Midpoint
Level 40
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,381
Subtract from Midpoint's ReputationAdd to Midpoint's Reputation Midpoint is legendary Midpoint is legendary Midpoint is legendary
Send a message via AIM to Midpoint
#30
04-27-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
As are knee jerk reactions like, "people who believe in god are stupid", but I digress. Existing on a polar opposite extreme from an idiot makes you an idiot too in most cases.
Winner. Alot of times I honestly sense you have grown as tired and bored of these discussions as I have.

A problem I have with a number of people is that they assign a sense of urgency and supremacy to their personal belief system to the point that others should adopt it, and that those who hold views contrary to it are an inherent danger to them and society as a whole.

Ive learned over time that intolerant, arrogant, cowardly people are pretty much the same, despite whatever side of the fence they play on.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off