RicOlie_2

Jaitea said:

darth_ender said:

 Your comment did not offend.  I do, however, feel this thread (as well as the Catholic thread) have become far more like "Reform the foolish believer" threads rather than engaging in understanding why we believe what we believe.  I don't mind that sort of discussion, but it would probably be better in its own thread, where the OP doesn't feel compelled to defend religion on his own.  You don't have to believe in God, but I assure you that 50 years down the road, people still will.  Instead of dwelling on what damage this world may have seen from religion, look at the good it has provided.  Most great discoveries have been performed by religious believers.  The freedoms enjoyed by this world's greatest nations have been founded by believers.  It can be used for ill, but so can the lack of religion.  If you truly subscribe to the belief that religion is the reason for most suffering on earth, then I encourage you to think things through a little more, my friend.

I think I'll start a new thread soon.

I don't think I have ever said that I viewed that most suffering on earth to be the result of religion and I don't think you need to patronise me by advising me to think things through.

As you said, perhaps alcohol made you come across the wrong way, but you heavily implied that religion will go extinct relatively soon and that it has been the cause of most suffering.

I have never been rude to you or Ric2, I've just asked questions that (i think) are loopholes in your faith....to make you question.....I don't think you are foolish, or that I am wise, some times when you are so close to something, you don't see what it looks like as others see it from afar

J

 You sometimes came across as one of those "superior intellect" types, and though I was never really offended, some (most of your comments were polite) comments seemed slightly rude or patronizing.

Jaitea said:

Hey guys this is a great thread!

A question to all, you are very clearly very happy with your religion, what religion are your parents?

My parents were both born and raised Catholics. My mother remains such, but my father is now agnostic.

What made you pick the religion that you think is better than all the others?

I gave a brief answer to this in the second post of this thread.

Do you think you would be that religion if you were born in another country, say India or Afghanistan?

Depends where. There are a lot of Catholics in India. Of course I could have been born into a different religion, in which case I would probably still belong to that religion. I would be an entirely different person had I been born somewhere else and I cannot therefore speculate as to whether or not I would have stuck with it.

......and a thing to remember, atheism isn't a religion, it's not believing in a deity.

Off is not a TV channel

J

 Again, that was just an oversight. I do recognize the distinction.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

[...]

Atheism:

 What Jaiteia said, if you make a list and write "religions", atheism doesn't belong there. But I'm sure this is merely an oversight.

Yes, that was merely an oversight. I was writing in the wee hours of the morning and wasn't at my sharpest. What I should have written was "My reasons for not placing my belief/unbelief in the following".

The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it;

You say that like there's a 50/50 chance that an individual without the moral compass of the bible might turn out a criminal. In reality most people have what's called common sense, and don't steal or kill or [insert dangerous act] because 1) they're worried about the consequences (pissing someone off) and 2) it would be a dick thing to do. What we really have is a much higher percentage of people that act like behaved citizens and don't steal their neighbours' car etc, and another percentage of people we call "criminals" that clearly do not understand the consequences of their actions. And let me remind you again, that in the real world not all of these criminals are atheists.

Once again I attribute my lack of clarity to my lack of sleep. :)

What I meant is that I disagree with those atheists (it is an atheist and perhaps agnostic viewpoint, though not all--and maybe only the minority--hold it) who believe that morals evolve over time. I believe they are fixed from the beginning. Those who believe in moral subjectivity don't believe that there is such thing as right and wrong. I am aware that this doesn't mean that they can't distinguish between the two, but they deny its existence.

In case I didn't make it any clearer, I am not of the opinion that atheists have no concept of right and wrong at all, but I am condemning moral subjectivity or evolution.

the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god

I beg to differ. It may seem unreasonable to you, because you come from the postulate "there is a god". But I assure you, it is not unreasonable. And I do understand the merits and reasons of theism.

Again, my choice of words was perhaps unclear. I don't mean that atheism is less reasonable, but just that it is not more reasonable. I don't necessarily believe that it is any less resonable either.

and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it)

If you're talking about the Arche, then neither science nor atheism are supposed to explain that (even though science started out that way). It's interesting to think that we could find a first cause, and it would sound like common sense that it should be an entity, and individual. Just like when we're children we ask "why is the sky blue?", the quest for knowledge is an enchanting and elightening one. But some questions may be wrong in the first place. And by wrong I mean "syntax error" kind of wrong. We look at the origin of the cosmos and ask "Who?". Maybe we're asking the wrong question.

I am not referring to the Arche or anything else which will likely remain a mystery forever, but rather I am referring to so-called supernatural experiences (which I naturally do believe are supernatural for the most part) and miracles.

As someone who does not need theism, I don't feel like I'm using "my superior intellect versus a primitive mind" cause I'll be the first to admit, I am a moron. I'll just say, try to look beyond your postulates. It ain't so bad.

 I'm glad you're not one to pull the superior intellect card, as I find that greatly detracts from a person's character. I find that my religion gives more answers than questions, so I stick with it and nothing yet has given me reason to believe that it is false.

No Frink, you're mixing up people and their beliefs/actions again. :P

I think agnosticism is better than atheism.

Well, it was nice to advance the game a few moves. I'd better call it a night, but I'm looking forward to continuing tomorrow later today. ;)

259

Come on Frink, you only have four days left!

I come from a family of nine (two sisters, four brothers, two parents, and me). I have not started my own family, so I don't have any kids of my own, but how about the rest of us?

My reasons for not believing the following religions:

Protestantism: I don't believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) because that makes little sense seeing as (a) it doesn't say that that ought to be the case anywhere in the Bible, in fact in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 it says that tradition is to be valued as well; (b) the books of the New Testament were not all completed until at least the end of the first century, were not compiled until the fourth century, and were not made readily available until the fifteenth century when the printing press was invented; and (c) I think the Church should be unified as suggested in the New Testament, which would be impossible with private interpretation (there are 41,000 Christian denominations!). I don't believe in Sola Fides (Faith Alone...I'm not sure if I got the Latin right) because again, that cannot result in unity which I believe is important. I have other reasons as well, but I don't have time to go into depth right now.

Mormonism: The lack of archaeological evidence of the events found in the Book of Mormon is suspicious, but otherwise, I have a lot of respect for Mormons and their religion and those I have met (including d_e ;) ) have given me a good impression of them overall. The polygamous Mormon sects are a different case though.

Judaism: This one is fairly obvious. I obviously believe the Messiah has already come and believe he dispensed with the fine details of the Mosaic Law and gave the next step up.

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

Hinduism: I'm not going to even bother explaining. The same goes for the ancient Greek, Babylonian, Roman, Egyptian, etc. gods and mythology.

Atheism: The relative subjectivity of atheist's morals doesn't attract me very much. I believe that right and wrong are fixed and do not evolve over time. Atheists believe so many different things and my reasons may not apply to all of them, but I am also opposed to moral subjectivity because of all the potential problems that can spring from it; the certainty of the nonexistence of any god seems no more reasonable than the belief in such a god and atheism doesn't explain so many things (science may one day, but I doubt it); atheists (this is not necessarily a problem with atheism itself) frequently try to impose their "superior intellect" on us primitive religious, a trait I find greatly detracts from their cause, as I think humility is a great virtue that would solve so many problems if more people possessed it; and I cannot agree with the ideals and ideas held by many atheists since they conflict with many ideals and ideas that are positive and beneficial in my personal experience and examples throughout history.

Agnosticism: Not much to say about this one. Similar to atheism, but not as bad.

N-1g

P-1f

K-3i

darth_ender said:

twister111 said:

*wonders if anyone would be interested in an "Ask the Jewish person" thread*

 Forgot to respond to this.  If you are a practicing Jew, I know I would love to read (or watch gif posts) of such a thread ;)

 If you know your stuff fairly well and practice your religion, I know I've got some questions for you and would love to see such a thread.

Well said, darth_ender.

K-4h

S-2h

You had to work today? That's a bummer... :(

R-2f

Why isn't this in Off Topic?

Am I a memeber? What's a memeber anyway?

Well, merry Christmas to you too.

I think my biggest weakness is that I don't make enough allowances for paratrooping which allows you to drop your pieces all over the place.

I think his point is more that if a Muslim did the same thing, he would be able to get away with it without being mocked. I think he's pointing out that Christians can be mocked a lot more than Muslims can before there are consequences for the mocker.

P-2e

Well, I think one of the moves that was key to my downfall was when I moved my Gold General to 5b (turn 24) because that allowed you to go straight to the end of the board.

I also made a mistake when I belatedly began moving my King towards the corner and made room for him to go through beginning on turn 26 (I had only just found out about that strategy and probably would have made different moves in the early game had I been aware of what you were trying to do). While I was doing this I largely ignored your Silver General coming up towards me, so I was ill prepared when you got there.

Then of course I stupidly moved my Bishop to kill the promoted SG (I think that was my best option at the time, so it was really a series of stupid movies that culminated in the taking of my Bishop). I think that was a pivotal point of the game, as it gave you the upper hand for almost the rest of the game.

I then made a distraction with my pawn, which bought me some time, and I think that was a smart move, but you countered it well enough that it did very little to help me in the end.

Then I made a series of fairly good moves, but you paratrooped in your Bishop on turn 51 which gave you a huge advantage later and forced me to become defensive for the rest of the game.

On turn 55 when you moved your promoted Bishop to a square adjacent to both my Rook and your promoted Rook, you gained a further advantage since you had another valuable piece to drop behind my ranks.

From there it went downhill and I had very little in terms of strategy, as I was just fighting for my life at that point. I knew it was over as soon as you had two promoted rooks at the end of the board and it didn't last long after that of course.

Any thoughts on how I could have turned the game in my favour at one of these points in the game?

EDIT: I suppose that was more a description of the game than an analysis...

Alright, I'll go first (I assume it doesn't really matter).

P-2f

I'll go again if no one else wants to.

K-9b