Religious type discussion



  • Hang on, you can pray for chocolate ?



  • @jegga yes Mayans in Central America have traditionally prayed for chocolate:

    Ixcanil, Goddess of Seed, hear me.
    Ixtoq, Goddess of Rain, help me.
    Ixcacao, Goddess of Chocolate, see my tears and come to my aid.



  • @Kirwan said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @akan004 said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @Kirwan said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    Looks like a couple of atheists standing out back waiting for the nonsense to finish

    No offence but you sound like an arrogant .....

    You've been absent for some cracking threads on religion in Off Topic!

    Come and join the fun next time, it'd be great to have at least one person defend it... 🙂

    Apparently it's arrogant to not believe in the Easter Bunny.

    I honestly don't care what you beliefs are. I'm an agnostic myself. It's just your condescending tone that I have an issue with.



  • Ohhhh one of those fence sitters aye. Comon @akan004 make up your mind... is the Easter Bunny real or not?? 🙂



  • @akan004 Agnostic or not, it's this exact reason why religon pretty much so fucks up the entire world.

    Calling it nonsense, is no more arrogant than doing a prayer in the middle of the rugby field.

    Religon or no religon, people should just get the fuck along, and not look to take offense/be offended at anybody who doesn't believe what they believe.



  • @No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    Ohhhh one of those fence sitters aye. Comon @akan004 make up your mind... is the Easter Bunny real or not?? 🙂

    I haven't met one atheist who can categorically say that there's no God- ultimately we cannot know for sure. Even Dawkins agrees with this. But the level of arrogance among most atheists is undeniable..



  • @MajorRage said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @akan004 Agnostic or not, it's this exact reason why religon pretty much so fucks up the entire world.

    Calling it nonsense, is no more arrogant than doing a prayer in the middle of the rugby field.

    Religon or no religon, people should just get the fuck along, and not look to take offense/be offended at anybody who doesn't believe what they believe.

    So by your reckoning, homophobic views and racist ideologies should not upset anyone? They should just get the fuck along? Not seeing the double standards my friend?



  • @akan004 Whoa whoa whoa ... I'm not going to get into a debate about the finer details of religon, it's boring and it never goes anywhere.

    And you've completely missed my point. In fact, I think we are actually on the same wavelength.

    Surely you can see the hypocrisy of calling an athiest arrogant given what he was criticising?



  • @akan004 said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @MajorRage said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @akan004 Agnostic or not, it's this exact reason why religon pretty much so fucks up the entire world.

    Calling it nonsense, is no more arrogant than doing a prayer in the middle of the rugby field.

    Religon or no religon, people should just get the fuck along, and not look to take offense/be offended at anybody who doesn't believe what they believe.

    So by your reckoning, homophobic views and racist ideologies should not upset anyone? They should just get the fuck along? Not seeing the double standards my friend?

    Homosexuality - human trait
    Race - human trait
    Religion - just an idea, open to criticism

    Very simple concept to grasp, I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with it.

    So no, no double standards.

    And it's not up to atheists to "dis-prove" a god. Or to use Dawkins example: "there are leprechauns living at the bottom of my garden, you have to prove they don't exist. Which of course you can't". See how ridliculous that is?

    I sense another religion thread coming in Off Topic! Woohoo!



  • @No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @akan004 said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @MajorRage said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    @akan004 Agnostic or not, it's this exact reason why religon pretty much so fucks up the entire world.

    Calling it nonsense, is no more arrogant than doing a prayer in the middle of the rugby field.

    Religon or no religon, people should just get the fuck along, and not look to take offense/be offended at anybody who doesn't believe what they believe.

    So by your reckoning, homophobic views and racist ideologies should not upset anyone? They should just get the fuck along? Not seeing the double standards my friend?

    Homosexuality - human trait
    Race - human trait
    Religion - just an idea, open to criticism

    Very simple concept to grasp, I don't know why so many people have so much trouble with it.

    So no, no double standards.

    And it's not up to atheists to "dis-prove" a god. Or to use Dawkins example: "there are leprechauns living at the bottom of my garden, you have to prove they don't exist. Which of course you can't". See how ridliculous that is?

    I sense another religion thread coming in Off Topic! Woohoo!

    Yeah, but unlike your leprechauns analogy, , 90% of the world's population are theists. So you can't just dismiss their views because it doesn't fit into your worldview. If the players choose to say a prayer after a game and are not imposing their beliefs on anyone else, why get upset about it?



  • You say that as if 90% of the worlds population all believe the same thing. The fact that so many different religions exist should set off the bullshit-alarm in your brain.

    There is a direct correllation between religious people and education. When you consider that only 7% of the worlds population holds a college or University degree, then it's not surprising that religion still has such a strong hold. Also, modern science is still a new concept, and again requires an education to understand. As time moves on religion will undoubtedly diminish in importance as more and more people see it for the complete nonsense that it is.

    Nobody got particularly upset either. I found it quite comical - they all look rather silly gathering in a circle and talking to an imaginary sky fairy.

    I'll make the same point again. Don't make the mistake of lumping religion (idea) in with human traits (sexuality, race, gender etc). If somebody criticises an idea that doesn't make them arrogant, and it doesn't mean they are discriminating against anyone.



  • Sorry for the thread diversion, I did start it afterall. I know the likes of Stargazer will not be impressed. @akan004 if you want to continue the debate we can always start a thread in Off Topic 🙂



  • @No-Quarter A lot of things in our day to day lives are open to interpretation. I have no problems with swearing for example- I honestly see nothing wrong with it. But I choose not to swear when in the company of certain mates and family members as I know they are strongly against it, and I do it out of respect for them. I just think the same consistency should be applied to people's religious beliefs as well. As long as they don't impose it on you, just let it go. If a player finds solace and peace in his faith, and makes him a better player for it, then who are we to mock him for his beliefs.

    Edit: Sorry, just saw your last post. That's it from me on this topic as well. Time to move on to rugby again.



  • @No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    Sorry for the thread diversion, I did start it afterall. I know the likes of Stargazer will not be impressed. @akan004 if you want to continue the debate we can always start a thread in Off Topic 🙂

    I'll solve that for you by making just one comment on this matter of my own:

    I don't understand the need of atheists to make negative comments about a group of players, who just - as an expression of their religious beliefs - say thanks after a game. It's not like anyone is forced to participate. I don't share the religious views of these players, but I can fully respect that they have those views and express them this way.

    Just like praying before or after a game is an expression of one's religion, the haka before the game is an expression of one's culture. Both are perfectly fine, although I don't easily see an All Black or other NZ rep being able to back out of doing the haka (so less freedom there).

    I can't stand people who try to force their (religious) views on me, but that applies both to people with a religious view and atheists. I also can't stand people who don't respect the freedom of (other) people to have religious or atheist views and to express/practice these views.

    But indeed, to remain OCD slash nerdy about posting in the right thread, express those views in a thread in "off-topic".



  • @Stargazer

    If a religious person wants to try and push their views on me then I'm more then happy to have a debate with them about why I would never believe something that has absolutely no evidence supporting it. Freedom of speech is hugely important to me, I don't want to stop religious people expressing what they believe in - quite the opposite - I want them to have that debate instead of shutting down any conversation with "I'm allowed to believe what I want so go away".

    If someone wants to believe they have leprechauns living at the bottom of their garden they are free to do so. But they shouldn't be surprised when people say "That sounds like nonsense, have you got any evidence to support that claim?". That's not someone "forcing their views" on another person, that's someone logically questioning whether what someone believes has any basis in truth.

    Shutting downs people's right to question ideas is a massive step backwards, and contradicts everything modern Science is based on.

    I like to ask questions. If that makes me one of those people you "can't stand", then so be it.



  • OFF
    TOPIC
    PLEASE



  • I did try to leave the discussion but Stargazer left a nice piece of bait... 🙂



  • @nostrildamus said in Religious type discussion:

    @jegga yes Mayans in Central America have traditionally prayed for chocolate:

    Ixcanil, Goddess of Seed, hear me.
    Ixtoq, Goddess of Rain, help me.
    Ixcacao, Goddess of Chocolate, see my tears and come to my aid.

    Sweet, is there a prayer to summon Nigella* and a pile of Whittaker's?

    *in the original ad , she looked way milfier in those ones and a bit scary in the recent one.



  • Ok, it's gone off topic and I'm bored at work, so I'm going to expand on why I disagreed with your view that Kirwan was being arrogant or whatever.

    In my opinion, there it little more things arrogant than religion itself. The fact that you can't wear what you want in certain countries, but then when people from these countries think they are entitled to wear their full coverings for everyday life in other parts of the world. Including local governments, court systems, schools etc. If that's not arrogance, then what is?

    And to address the point of Saturdays prayer. Well, hang on a second, those players decided to get together in the middle of the field and show the world their religion. They know they are role models, they know that kids mimic them, they know that when they get down and do that, plenty of children will be going - "why are they doing that", "can we do that", "if I do that will I be a sports star", which is effectively shoving it down their throat. That's rather arrogant isn't it?

    Athiests, on the whole, are certainly in no way more arrogant than religious types with their views. In fact, the tolerance they must have, as religion is everywhere in society, is higher than most.



  • I didn't think Kirwan's statement was arrogant as he was just saying what the couple of bods out the back were most likely doing/thinking. Why is that arrogant? Weird.



  • I love the fact that one of the mods (not me) decided to start this new thread from the "you can pray for chocolate" post by @jegga 🙂



  • TBH I was short on time, so hadnt trawled back further to see if anymore should be moved, but I thought the point was made 🙂



  • @MajorRage said in Religious type discussion:

    Ok, it's gone off topic and I'm bored at work, so I'm going to expand on why I disagreed with your view that Kirwan was being arrogant or whatever.

    In my opinion, there it little more things arrogant than religion itself. The fact that you can't wear what you want in certain countries, but then when people from these countries think they are entitled to wear their full coverings for everyday life in other parts of the world. Including local governments, court systems, schools etc. If that's not arrogance, then what is?

    And to address the point of Saturdays prayer. Well, hang on a second, those players decided to get together in the middle of the field and show the world their religion. They know they are role models, they know that kids mimic them, they know that when they get down and do that, plenty of children will be going - "why are they doing that", "can we do that", "if I do that will I be a sports star", which is effectively shoving it down their throat. That's rather arrogant isn't it?

    No.



  • Ultimately the world is a pretty evil, fucked up place full of evil, fucked up people. If believing in some god-like entity gives people hope and happiness then good on them. So long as that faith does not affect anyone else who really cares. If the prayer session on Saturday was in fact for Leilefano then I see no problem. I believe he's religious himself and as someone literally fighting for his life he probably greatly appreciated it. No harm done.

    That stuff is benign, but when religion basically becomes law and has an affect (even deadly)on people who want no part of it, then that is a big big problem.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Religious type discussion:

    > 
    > That stuff is benign, but when religion basically becomes law and has an affect (even deadly)on people who want no part of it, then that is a big big problem.```
    
    I agree, that prayer is about as meaningful as someone looking up at the sky afer scoring a try etc. If it means a lot to them, then that's cool and it certianly doesn't hurt anyone by them doing so


  • Why doesn't the ''' ''' quote thingy work for me?



  • @Hooroo said in Religious type discussion:

    Why doesn't the ''' ''' quote thingy work for me?

    don't thnk you use those??



  • This post is deleted!


  • @Hooroo

    Not '

    Try `



  • @Duluth Ka Pai!



  • @Hooroo

    Looks like it also works with 3 ~



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel Yep, totally agree.

    I don't have a problem with what happened at all. I just have a problem with the hypocrisy of the arrogant comment.



  • @akan004 said in Religious type discussion:

    @No-Quarter said in Wallabies v Springboks:

    Ohhhh one of those fence sitters aye. Comon @akan004 make up your mind... is the Easter Bunny real or not?? 🙂

    I haven't met one atheist who can categorically say that there's no God- ultimately we cannot know for sure. Even Dawkins agrees with this. But the level of arrogance among most atheists is undeniable..

    LOL... one of the single most stupid things I have ever had the displeasure of reading on the Fern.

    I honestly doubt you are anything close to agnostic because no one who is truly agnostic would say such a thing about Atheists!

    You do understand it is near on impossible to prove a negative and that to take it further, the onus and burden of proof lies with those making the claims. And quite frankly, thus far there is not a single substantiated piece of proof or evidence for the existence of any god or gods claimed to exist by their followers.

    Further, Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any god or gods....

    Of the thousands of gods created and worhsiped by mankind over the many millennia, the Atheist simply does not hold a belief or faith in the existence of any of those gods.

    And really, the only difference between an Atheist and any one of the say monotheistic religions is that the Atheist lacks in a belief in one more god than the montheist.

    It is only the ignorant theist who tries to shift the burden of proof on to those who do not hold the same belief.

    My honest opions about religion go like this... An individual's private faith in the existence of a god or gods is their own business. However organised religions are a scourge and have been throughout history. They way they always attempt to dictate how everyone should think and act regardless if they are of another faith or without faith.

    The one thing that I absolutely cannot stand in the typical theist is the absolute abhorrent and gross arrogance, egotistical way where they thank "god" for all the wonderful things in their life or some sporting achievement thinking that some "god" has bestowed upon them this special honour or special talent yet has allowed how many millions of innocent children to die and how many millions of people who have suffered in every way possible.

    That attitude makes me sick to my stomach.

    It is not the Atheist who is arrogant, but the theist who thinks that their own personal beliefs and those of whatever religion they follow dictates have more value than the person and persons beside them or on the other side of this planet.

    The thing that every theist fails to consider is that why is their belief and faith any more important, why is their god or gods any more important and real than those other religions which they discount and abhor! The Christian belief is not any less or any more real than that of the hindu, buddhist, etc.

    The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!



  • @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!

    Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc



  • @ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:

    @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!

    Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc

    How do you suggest someone who doesn't support Marriage Equality should be labelled? It's going to be for one of the reasons you mention or one of the etc.



  • How about they just say they don't agree with it and not resort to that.



  • @ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:

    @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!

    Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc

    Those are rather ugly lables but they are often at the heart of the matter.

    And let me say, this debate is not "same sex marriage". To put this more correctly, this is about "Marriage Equality". Yes, there is a subtle but very important distinction.

    And quite frankly, I find it disgusting that anybody should want to deny any other human being from the joy of being able to celebrate the love they have for another person.

    That is where this debate should start and end.

    Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a civil act and should have no bearing on religion except for those who wish to get married in a place of religion. But it is most often those with "religion" that want to deny this right of marriage to other human beings.

    It is a quite simple fact that marriage equality will not result in any harm to any religious person or any religion yet it is most often the religious and those representing religions who are most staunchly opposed and those who wish to impose their own beliefs on others.



  • @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    @ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:

    @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!

    Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc

    Those are rather ugly lables but they are often at the heart of the matter.

    And let me say, this debate is not "same sex marriage". To put this more correctly, this is about "Marriage Equality". Yes, there is a subtle but very important distinction.

    And quite frankly, I find it disgusting that anybody should want to deny any other human being from the joy of being able to celebrate the love they have for another person.

    That is where this debate should start and end.

    Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a civil act and should have no bearing on religion except for those who wish to get married in a place of religion. But it is most often those with "religion" that want to deny this right of marriage to other human beings.

    It is a quite simple fact that marriage equality will not result in any harm to any religious person or any religion yet it is most often the religious and those representing religions who are most staunchly opposed and those who wish to impose their own beliefs on others.

    The tone of your post is akin to how you were describing theists in your previous post.

    You are talking in absolutes using terms like "is not" and "simple fact".

    The highlighted part you are being definitive about where things should start and finish. Some may think differently and prosecute it as passionately.



  • @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    @ACT-Crusader said in Religious type discussion:

    @RoninWC said in Religious type discussion:

    The Marriage Equality debate here in Australia will display those traits in a very typically ugly way!

    Isn't that the same "ugliness" that is on display now from some supporters of same sex marriage who label those that don't share their view as bigots, homophobes, out of touch, etc

    Those are rather ugly lables but they are often at the heart of the matter.

    And let me say, this debate is not "same sex marriage". To put this more correctly, this is about "Marriage Equality". Yes, there is a subtle but very important distinction.

    And quite frankly, I find it disgusting that anybody should want to deny any other human being from the joy of being able to celebrate the love they have for another person.

    That is where this debate should start and end.

    Marriage is not a religious construct. It is a civil act and should have no bearing on religion except for those who wish to get married in a place of religion. But it is most often those with "religion" that want to deny this right of marriage to other human beings.

    It is a quite simple fact that marriage equality will not result in any harm to any religious person or any religion yet it is most often the religious and those representing religions who are most staunchly opposed and those who wish to impose their own beliefs on others.

    I don't think it's just religious people who are opposed. There are also the traditionalist who believe marriage is between a man and woman. This was after all the policy position of all the major parties until very recently. I can't believe they were all bigots and homophobes back then,

    Personally, I don't care myself. If gays want to call their civil unions marriages then good luck to them. At the end of the day, that's what it's all about. But I do understand that some people might be opposed to using the term marriage in this manner. That doesn't mean that they have anything against gays or gay unions. It simply means that they feel that traditionally the term marriage is used to describe a union between a man and a woman.

    Like I said, if gays want to call it marriage then go for it. But I don't think screaming bigot or homophobe will help get this thing passed.



  • @ACT-Crusader That's all well in good if it's just a discussion in a vacuum, but if they're trying to defend their position using bigoted reasons then why not label them in that way?


Log in to reply