Religion – your views

[incognito]

I actually heard that last one. Pretty neat story, but I'm not in the mood of debating tonight.

[Dart]

Personally I don't believe in any Gods or faith but I'm not Atheistic either

Well you just described an atheist, so how are you not atheistic?

I think I phrased that wrong, so I'll try it again. No I don't believe in any Gods, but I don't believe in science either, like Darwin's theory of evolution, which I guess makes me an Existential Nihilist.

[Adsolution]

but I don't believe in science either, like Darwin's theory of evolution

Uh oh.

[Xenon]

If you aren't religious, why not believe in evolution? It's no more a theory than the world is spherical. Seems like you're falling into the trap of seeing "science" and religion as two opposing entities, and plucking for the safe middle option.

As a footnote, nobody should take anything I say on record day seriously!

[Adsolution]

It's no more a theory than the world is spherical.

*no less a theory

[Xenon]

Nope, no more will do. To claim evolution is more of a theory than the world's shape would be inimical to the point I was trying to convey. But all's fine as I'm sure we can speak in layman's terms and still have a reasonable discussion.

[Keane]

If someone believes they are doing something righteously they will believe they have a space reserved in heaven. That alone proves religion is false, as the billions of religionists on this planet each hold their own individual value beliefs.

No it's not, it's nature, and God created nature I think.

But there are some commonly accepted, and unaccepted values such like killing innocent people, with which most people, and in this way, the most powerful people disagree.

Reading the Book of Genesis, it really fits into the puzzle that our nature is in fact, created by God, moreover, created in its own image, with this independence, free will etc. but through the sin, distorted by sin. That's why control of my behavior may be limited, it may getting worse, and you need to work on yourself in order to not only achieve something in life, but also to make something good in life, to deserve be called "good man". Like everything valuable in life, it not comes easy.

Literally every "value" can be interpreted differently, even common ones. I think the USA's drone air strikes are fucking monstrous, but the people in charge consider it a necessary evil. There are absolutely people who murder, rob, lie, betray, etc, and think they're good Christian folks. Is God going to cast someone into eternal fire and pitchfork plaza for having been raised in an environment that's reinforced endlessly a believe that Christianity is false, and they're actually doing the -right- thing by joining something like ISIS and putting a gun to someone's head?

I don't think anyone out there doing anything commonly considered "evil" is doing it with the intent of being so, it's often for a really delusional cause or they're just mentally fucked up. They make up their own tunnel vision that justifies what they're doing, and if anything religion often encourages that thinking. Trump wants to target children in air strikes, but Christian pastors proclaim him sent by God, how can you ever really decide what makes a "good man" when everyone thinks they're one?

[Adsolution]

To claim evolution is more of a theory than the world's shape would be inimical to the point I was trying to convey.

Would it? I read your post about ten times before I posted, and now another ten times after, and I'm still a little lost. It seems to act as a negatory to the first sentence/question in your post, which is what it sounds like it's answering, and the third sentence appears to be addressing a different point.

Nonetheless, I'm sure I'd agree with you if I was interpreting your post correctly.

I think the USA's drone air strikes are fucking monstrous

Targeting civilians is obviously an abominable thing to do, but am I the only one who doesn't take issue with the idea of drone strikes? I feel like I am most of the time. People always go on about how they put too much reckless power in the hands of the individual and that it creates an emotional detachment from what you're doing, but this is probably exactly what people said about guns when they were invented; these arguments are complete cop-outs. I was listening to a Sargon of Akkad stream where he was talking about how he found it wrong for reasons previously stated that the police used a bomb drone to take out murderer who, after engaging in a shoot-out, hid out on the second floor of an abandoned building, and I strongly disagreed. Obviously there's an obligation to act with a sense of morale, but why on Earth, if you had so much power, would you choose not to use it and endanger your people instead of using it to take out the obvious threat?

[Keane]

Targeting civilians is obviously an abominable thing to do, but am I the only one who doesn't take issue with the idea of drone strikes? I feel like I am most of the time. People always go on about how they put too much reckless power in the hands of the individual and that it creates an emotional detachment from what you're doing, but this is probably exactly what people said about guns when they were invented; these arguments are complete cop-outs. I was listening to a Sargon of Akkad stream where he was talking about how he found it wrong for reasons previously stated that the police used a bomb drone to take out murderer who, after engaging in a shoot-out, hid out on the second floor of an abandoned building, and I strongly disagreed. Obviously there's an obligation to act with a sense of morale, but why on Earth, if you had so much power, would you choose not to use it and endanger your people instead of using it to take out the obvious threat?

Well definitely yeah, I'm not gonna be the one to get all into the "but these people have no heart!!" thing, and yes drones are a great way to expand protection. The problem is more that these air strikes have often proved to be not even close to as precise and careful as claimed, and way too many unrelated innocent people have died due to them. But the US has this persistent believe that the they, by default, have the higher moral ground, and any of those deaths are necessary evil for a greater good. Certainly you could debate whether that's actually true, but I don't think anyone can logically disagree that the current strikes need to amended, instead of being silently swept under the rug. It's not front page news when the US is responsible for shooting up innocent families, but the other way around you'd have a million Republicans begging for war and payback. Regardless of opinion, the point is that if there's room for improving on an issue of killing innocent people, any sane person should be willing to act on that.

TL;DR, it becomes monstrous in my eyes when we know that these air strikes are risking other people's lives, but instead of genuine debate on how to improve the situation most people are too comfortably sure that as long as the US is doing it, it'll always be justified. What I think the US is really doing, is stepping down to the level of terrorists, and deciding that as long as they're not the ones who started it it's free game for them.

(And, in the case of Trump, it's not even a debate because he wants to make these strikes intentional, kind of like a terrorist. Self-proclaimed supporter of human rights protection suggests he gets to decide for others if they need to die for his cause.)

[Bradandez]

If Evolution is true, how come there's still monkeys? Explain that, you fucking atheistic retards.

[jurebj]

Everyone is a monkey. Some just hide it better.

[Adsolution]

You're projecting.

[Xenon]

@ Ad: Still seems fine to me. Either way, don't be a corrector. About ten years ago I used to be one for like a week, using red text and everything, but was rightly ridiculed for it. Don't join the grammar police, be a man of the people!

[Adsolution]

Well mr communist, that certainly cleared up my confusion.

[deton24]

There are absolutely people who murder, rob, lie, betray, etc, and think they're good Christian folks.

Trolling, joking, or lack of respect?
What are you try to demonstrate?
For me as a Christian it's absolutely non sense, and offensive.

The thing which your demonstrate is just epistemology.
It's dead end of lot of contemporary modern societies.

[Adsolution]

There are absolutely people who murder, rob, lie, betray, etc, and think they're good Christian folks.

Trolling, joking, or lack of respect?
What are you try to demonstrate?
For me as a Christian it's absolutely non sense, and offensive.

click me

[Ambidextroid]

Oh, Ad's back, yay
I don't understand the belief in any religion, because they're all so specific. How could you believe in a story like those in the Bible or the Qur'an just out of trust of some author many years ago who gave no sort of proof or evidence to his story. I understand that when you're brought up learning a certain thing it's hard to reject it later in life, but I don't understand why you'd believe it on your own.
Believing in the existence of some kind of God I could understand but why would you think he looked like, of all things, a human bring or be concerned with people or have a son called Jesus or be an elephant. And how would the writers of your holy book know?

[Adsolution]

but I don't understand why you'd believe it on your own.

Based off of my own research, this an averaged story of a person who fell pray to [Christianity] as an adult that I just made up:

--
Though he might have claimed to be one, he never truly understood what it meant to be a skeptic. When he identified as an atheist as a teenager and young adult, he fell in with the anti-theist crowd and was often very disdainful towards religion. Every one of his opinions he had garnered from another source, as he was neither open-minded nor creative enough to think from the ground up. While his educators he could tell spoke with hard logic, he could not reciprocate, only reiterate.

As he passed through high school and college, his anger dissipated, and his circle of friends became more varied. Now exposed to the world and fully independent, he found himself unsatisfied with his inability to argue his position, let alone understand his own rhetoric. As a core principal of atheism/nihlism is the lack of objective purpose, philosophical questions begin pounding at him until the thought of even considering his position upsets him greatly. The badge of atheism he once wore proudly now fills him with disdain. His failure makes him remorseful towards those he once talked down to. At this point, through an emotional lens, seeimg Christianity as an ideology of unconditional love and atheism as nothing more than hate incarnate, he makes his decision.
--

Take note of his conversion - it's far more comparable to movimg from blindly following one belief to blindly following another, one that satisfies his unhealthy obsession with finding objective truths - through no means of his own.

Alternatively, merely being obsessed with philosophy can sometimes be enough turn a more weak-minded (but nevertheless legitimate) skeptic into a total nimrod.

[PluMGMK]

Well mr communist, that certainly cleared up my confusion.

Seems when he said "no more a theory" he meant "no less a fact". Whereas I assume when you said "no less a theory" you meant "no worse a theory". Just wanted to (try to) clear that up.

Also, nice to see you again.

[Bradandez]

Jesus touched a black waitress and turned her white and said "I fixed you!".