today's wikileaks cabledump

[Zanchief]

Let me put 'sin' into a simple sentence you can appreciate: "Don't be a douchebag". Positing a basic philosophy that argues against lying, stealing, killing, and treating others bad is wrong why?

That isn't sin at all. Actually, insinuating that is what sin is, is probably against several passages of the bible. Humans are capable of that amount morality without an ounce of religion. Look at crime statistics based on faith. They don't ever, in anyway, corroborate your hypothesis that godlessness equals lawlessness. It's actually quite the opposite.

It seems to me, only when we can ride ourselves of these false constructs, can we truly interpret morality for ourselves as a species. Religion has never done a good job of it.

[Lyion]

It's a shame you don't talk to someone from a Seminary who is vastly more educated and knowledgeable.

Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin.

I'll stop with the religious discussions with you as your anti-theistic rants are not based in philosopy but merely spite for others faith.

[Zanchief]

Then that passage pretty much agrees with me in stating that we don't need religion since man is capable of making it's own moral judgements. I know this to be completely contrary to religion though, since every single one of my religious friends insist that man is not capable administering his own morality and needs religion. Every Jesuit, Priest and Rabbi would disagree with you on the subject too, not that that will stop you from trying to slam someone on the internet. You're interpretation of the word of God is pretty much what I hate about religion.

To be honest I can stomach the crazies, because I get them, they just need to believe it. They can't accept that life has not greater meaning, so they buy it completely. You, on the other hand, pervert it to mean what ever you want, and that is a hell of a lot scarier. This spiritual hippy hogwash just doesn't fly with me. If you know organized religion to be a load of crap, don't drag it kicking and screaming into the civilized world. Leave it back with the segregationist, misogynists and the rest of the people who have littered the conservative landscape. Don't update the meaning to say, we just want everyone to love each other and be nice to each other (and not fuck each other in the ass), that's not what religion is. It's God will smite you down if you eat shell fish. It's God thinks a woman's place is behind a man. It's hate those who don't believe in what you believe. You can't ignore all that stuff and take the good and tell me how great it is. Take it all and it stinks.

You know what happens when you make religion what you want to be? You're a humanist just like me. Don't kid yourself. I don't.

[Lyion]

Then that passage pretty much agrees with me in stating that we don't need religion since man is capable of making it's own moral judgements. I know this to be completely contrary to religion though, since every single one of my religious friends insist that man is not capable administering his own morality and needs religion. Every Jesuit, Priest and Rabbi would disagree with you on the subject too, not that that will stop you from trying to slam someone on the internet. You're interpretation of the word of God is pretty much what I hate about religion.

To be honest I can stomach the crazies, because I get them, they just need to believe it. They can't accept that life has not greater meaning, so they buy it completely. You, on the other hand, pervert it to mean what ever you want, and that is a hell of a lot scarier. This spiritual hippy hogwash just doesn't fly with me. If you know organized religion to be a load of crap, don't drag it kicking and screaming into the civilized world. Leave it back with the segregationist, misogynists and the rest of the people who have littered the conservative landscape. Don't update the meaning to say, we just want everyone to love each other and be nice to each other (and not fuck each other in the ass), that's not what religion is. It's God will smite you down if you eat shell fish. It's God thinks a woman's place is behind a man. It's hate those who don't believe in what you believe. You can't ignore all that stuff and take the good and tell me how great it is. Take it all and it stinks.

You know what happens when you make religion what you want to be? You're a humanist just like me. Don't kid yourself. I don't.

ok.

[Zanchief]

Head, meet sand. Yep, you've got the faith alright.

[Menelvir]

It is probably the case that mankind generally simply cannot reap the benefits of organized religion as practiced by moderates (benefits including, but not limited to: solace, fellowship, shared moral system, etc.) without also suffering the negative side-effects of organized religion as typically manifested by extremists (such as sectarian violence, religious-based persecutions, etc.).

For any given belief system, there is at least one individual for whom it is true that original system is inadequate and in need of revision. More importantly, it is further true that this individual can make some case against the system which is capable of convincing other individuals that the system is inadequate. Boom - instant sectarianism.

This belief in the inadequacy of the original system can evolve over time to such a degree that not only is the original system considered inadequate, it's considered downright wrong, or even sacrilegious. At this point, it is much less difficult to justify action against the opposed side. Alternatively, one side may feel threatened by the other for any number of reasons. Now the stage is set for violent sectarianism.

Any extremists and others that live at the fringe of the belief system are probably the ones doing the greatest damage to whatever good name organized religion might have. The extremists are the ones that give rise to the idea among more reasonable individuals (atheists or otherwise) that organized religion is more of a divisive force than it is a unifying one.

Extremism of any stripe, religious or otherwise, is generally bad. Organized religion simply makes it easier for certain ideas (including the extreme ones that are negative and even harmful) to take root and grow.

[brinstar]

never cared much for thomas aquinas imo

anyway re: religion really depends on the person. person A could subscribe to christianity and be hateful and bigoted and hypocritical and insane and pretty much the opposite of everything christ was and taught (i.e. mindia)

meanwhile person B could use christianity as a deep guideline on how to approach everything in this world with endless love and quiet sanity and graceful humility (i.e. my mom)

same religion, same core ideals - radically different implementation

[Zanchief]

It is probably the case that mankind generally simply cannot reap the benefits of organized religion as practiced by moderates (benefits including, but not limited to: solace, fellowship, shared moral system, etc.) without also suffering the negative side-effects of organized religion as typically manifested by extremists (such as sectarian violence, religious-based persecutions, etc.).

For any given belief system, there is at least one individual for whom it is true that original system is inadequate and in need of revision. More importantly, it is further true that this individual can make some case against the system which is capable of convincing other individuals that the system is inadequate. Boom - instant sectarianism.

This belief in the inadequacy of the original system can evolve over time to such a degree that not only is the original system considered inadequate, it's considered downright wrong, or even sacrilegious. At this point, it is much less difficult to justify action against the opposed side. Alternatively, one side may feel threatened by the other for any number of reasons. Now the stage is set for violent sectarianism.

Any extremists and others that live at the fringe of the belief system are probably the ones doing the greatest damage to whatever good name organized religion might have. The extremists are the ones that give rise to the idea among more reasonable individuals (atheists or otherwise) that organized religion is more of a divisive force than it is a unifying one.

Extremism of any stripe, religious or otherwise, is generally bad. Organized religion simply makes it easier for certain ideas (including the extreme ones that are negative and even harmful) to take root and grow.

I don't subscribe to the notion that religion is good for people because people need to be lied to in order to better their lives. All your conjecture seems to be looking at the idea of religion first from the point of view that it is wrong (not morally but truthfully) and that even if it's wrong it may be good for mankind. Dishonesty is never good for people, and should never be an adequate choice for controlling the population. Some, like Lyion and Mindia, want dishonesty. They think the world would be better with the wool pulled over their eyes.

I have a higher morale standard then that. I'm like Jesus in that way.

[Zanchief]

never cared much for thomas aquinas imo

anyway re: religion really depends on the person. person A could subscribe to christianity and be hateful and bigoted and hypocritical and insane and pretty much the opposite of everything christ was and taught (i.e. mindia)

meanwhile person B could use christianity as a deep guideline on how to approach everything in this world with endless love and quiet sanity and graceful humility (i.e. my mom)

same religion, same core ideals - radically different implementation

Do you really think your mother would be any less caring if she wasn't religious, or if she was a Muslim or a scientologist or whatever? She's probably just a caring person, just like Mindia is an ass. Lyion claimed to have become a better person once he found religion but he's the same pompous prick he's always been. Jesus has not made him any better, it's just given him more ammunition.

[Lyion]

[Menelvir]

I don't subscribe to the notion that religion is good for people because people need to be lied to in order to better their lives. All your conjecture seems to be looking at the idea of religion first from the point of view that it is wrong (not morally but truthfully) and that even if it's wrong it may be good for mankind. Dishonesty is never good for people, and should never be an adequate choice for controlling the population. Some, like Lyion and Mindia, want dishonesty. They think the world would be better with the wool pulled over their eyes.

The truth or falsity of supernatural religious claims is largely irrelevant to me.

I find discussing religious systems and their internal coherence (or incoherence) an interesting pedagogic exercise, but I have little interest beyond that.

The premise that religious people are somehow being lied to assumes from the outset that the tenets are false, and I wasn't addressing that claim.

Whether or not the beliefs are good for certain individuals is, in my view, indisputable. And I don't subscribe to the notion that any and all forms of dishonesty are categorically bad, I am not a Kantian. If an individual (or individuals) believe strongly enough that there is a positive influence on their lives, then there is one, which may manifest in different and subtle ways that you or I cannot (or will not) detect.

However, when the beliefs become shared, on a large scale (i.e. the beliefs become an organized system and are practiced systematically among large groups) the dynamic changes and gains far greater potential for systemic abuse and consequentially, greater harm to greater numbers of others who may not share the beliefs.

[Zanchief]

The truth or falsity of supernatural religious claims is largely irrelevant to me.

I find discussing religious systems and their internal coherence (or incoherence) an interesting pedagogic exercise, but I have little interest beyond that.

The premise that religious people are somehow being lied to assumes from the outset that the tenets are false, and I wasn't addressing that claim.

But you don't believe, so saying this is good for people is dishonest. I can't get behind that at all. Lies for the betterment of others is bad. It's arrogant that some believe that others need to be tricked because they are too stupid to live with the truth. It assumes that some people (the ones doing the lying) are more capable of understanding the truth then others.

In this regard I abhor dishonesty.

Whether or not the beliefs are good for certain individuals is, in my view, indisputable.

I dispute it wholeheartedly. Religion doesn't change a person's morality. How could it? People behave the way they do whether their religious or not. There's simply no place for religion beyond simple disillusion. We don't enable peoples delusions in other regards. Why would we just because they have greater numbers? It seems abiding this type of behavior is fashionable or tolerant, but it's not good for people. I don't see the good in enabling bad behaviour.

[Menelvir]

Whether I believe or don't believe is irrelevant to the discussion. Quite honestly, I simply don't care one way or the other, as the truth OR falsity of any supernatural religious claim wouldn't affect my life in the slightest way. Outside of academic exercise, which I enjoy, I simply don't care.

I wouldn't characterize all cases as stupid people being tricked. I don't feel that this is always the case -- sure, you've got your Jim Jones crowd that were, by and large, tricked by a supremely charismatic person into drinking the kool-aid, and I do think what he did was very, very wrong, but as brin mentioned, that's an example of a person twisting religious belief to their own ends. And in Jones's case, I think he was doing it for purely selfish reasons, much like L. Ron Hubbard's 'get rich by inventing a religion' bet. In my view, though, just because the source of the religion was a bet doesn't imply that individuals can't derive benefit from it. If Tom Cruise thinks Xenu makes his life go better, then maybe it does -- it would be absurd for me to think that such belief would make my life go better, but if he wants to believe that, who am I to tell him he's wrong?

This is what I meant by the belief being "good" for people; I didn't mean good in a moral sense, I meant good as in some individuals believe that it makes their lives go better, and that's really all that matters. To an outside observer, truth doesn't even enter into it. An individual believes it helps them in some way, and it does, maybe in ways that aren't obvious to me personally.

There are always going to be persons that are susceptible to the negative influences of charismatic individuals, but I wouldn't condemn all of religion on those grounds. Religion does make it easier for charismatic people to convince other people to do stupid things, and I do think that is a mark against it in a general sense, because it is a very good vehicle for disseminating ideas that will have negative outcomes.

[Zanchief]

To an outside observer, truth doesn't even enter into it. An individual believes it helps them in some way, and it does, maybe in ways that aren't obvious to me personally.

Well they are believing in something that I (and I wager you as well) think is false. I don't see how someone could gain a healthy amount of good from this, anymore then someone who's lost a loved one but refuses they are gone, could gain solace from their delusion. Fairytales are ultimately unhealthy. I understand the desire to want something more, but that want doesn't make it so. Continuing to indulge the grownup fantasies of billions of people doesn't sound like something that's healthy for the world.

I, personally, can't accept something I think has no merit simply because some say it makes them a better person. For a long time I thought like you, but I just don't anymore. It's too dishonest. Not to say I'm not cordial with my religious friends. I don't even mind debating with them, but I draw the line at abiding delusion. I can't and won't do it. If that makes me a bad person, so be it, I'm willing to accept that. But you'll have to lump me in with everyone who condemns cultists, scientologists and any number of other mentally vacuous ideas.

[Menelvir]

Well they are believing in something that I (and I wager you as well) think is false.

But just because you or I or Richard Dawkins believe it to be false doesn't mean that it is false.

I don't see how someone could gain a healthy amount of good from this, anymore then someone who's lost a loved one but refuses they are gone, could gain solace from their delusion.

I guess we simply differ in this regard - I believe there are imperceptible benefits (as well as imperceptible harms), and for a certain kind of person, holding a certain kind of belief, this can hold true.

Fairytales are ultimately unhealthy.

I disagree. Even outside of the sense of fairy tales as literature, a certain amount of fantasy is healthy and desirable. Everyone I know engages in it to some degree. I believe it necessary for balance. I'd agree that too much of anything is likely going to be harmful in the long term if not the short, but it's helpful insofar as it grants perspective and other benefits.

Not to say I'm not cordial with my religious friends. I don't even mind debating with them, but I draw the line at abiding delusion.

Well, you have to abide it to some degree if you're truly friends, wouldn't you agree? It seems there might be some measure of dishonesty (by omission) on your part, unless you're telling them essentially "hey look, I like you as a friend, but I also think you're completely deluded because of these wacky beliefs you hold."

[brinstar]

never cared much for thomas aquinas imo

anyway re: religion really depends on the person. person A could subscribe to christianity and be hateful and bigoted and hypocritical and insane and pretty much the opposite of everything christ was and taught (i.e. mindia)

meanwhile person B could use christianity as a deep guideline on how to approach everything in this world with endless love and quiet sanity and graceful humility (i.e. my mom)

same religion, same core ideals - radically different implementation

Do you really think your mother would be any less caring if she wasn't religious, or if she was a Muslim or a scientologist or whatever?

no, i fully believe she would be just as wonderful were any of those the case, just like i imagine mindia would be a venomous antichrist no matter which ideology he followed

but whether belief is folly simply on the merit that it lacks absolute truth? i cannot make that leap

[Zanchief]

Well they are believing in something that I (and I wager you as well) think is false.

But just because you or I or Richard Dawkins believe it to be false doesn't mean that it is false.

To me there is no difference. If I believe it to be false, it is false.

[Zanchief]

but whether belief is folly simply on the merit that it lacks absolute truth? i cannot make that leap

Make the leap! I did, and I feel great.

[Drem]

yea i don't subscribe to stuff like that. i think experience is the best teacher. i don't need a book to tell me not to be an asshole. i already learned that irl, long time ago. yunno?

i just feel a lot of people these days are caught up in themselves and that's really hurting them. caring about what other people think and putting yourself in other peoples' shoes is a good thing. i don't need a book to tell me that. i can see the results on my well-being every day according to what i do or do not do

that's kinda what i think life's about. and christianity in particular nails it with the whole "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others" and "do not judge" type of stuff. not so into all the other retarded stuff, like not eating shell fish or if you're muslim you don't eat pigs because they don't eat of the cud or whatever. well, i love pigs, mostly because they don't eat their own vomit. cleaner than a cow anyday. also bacon

scriptures are stupid, dated, etc, to me. we revise everything in education, like textbooks and ideoligies etc. but none of this ever reaches the masses save for whatever generation's around it when it's in publication and paying to read it

i don't understand why so many people are set on devoting their lives to irrelevant texts from thousands of years ago which (if you ever take comp lit classes about it) are horribly translated compared to their sources, vary from version to version within the same language, and are generally just a bunch of nonsense

just makes me think of the george carlin skit about religion. and, unrelated to the carlin skit, how when you break it down, most religious analogies refer to the sun or the constellations or something about 12. the greeks had 12 gods on olympus, romans had 12 major gods, egyptians had 12 major gods, etc etc.... it's not hard to piece together. nowadays with so much info easily available it's really not too hard to see all the connections between, well, everything

i dunno, silly and weird, but makes perfect sense to me. the sun gives us life. energy. creates everything. it's god @@

give up the superficial crap and focus more on your jobs, your lives, your friends, your family, and you'll be happier. don't need to take time out to read books and go to mass or what the f ever

[Harrison]

never cared much for thomas aquinas imo

anyway re: religion really depends on the person. person A could subscribe to christianity and be hateful and bigoted and hypocritical and insane and pretty much the opposite of everything christ was and taught (i.e. mindia)

meanwhile person B could use christianity as a deep guideline on how to approach everything in this world with endless love and quiet sanity and graceful humility (i.e. my mom)

same religion, same core ideals - radically different implementation

Do you really think your mother would be any less caring if she wasn't religious, or if she was a Muslim or a scientologist or whatever?

no, i fully believe she would be just as wonderful were any of those the case, just like i imagine mindia would be a venomous antichrist no matter which ideology he followed

but whether belief is folly simply on the merit that it lacks absolute truth? i cannot make that leap

This is the thing that bugs me about atheists. They claim the same shit that is both not able to be proved, but on the opposite spectrum, and feel they are superior for this belief.



Almost every atheist I have ever come in contact with thinks that they are superior to anyone with a belief other than their own. They look down on people who have other beliefs, and have no problems spewing their derision of said believers.

I try to look at existence from a logical standpoint, myself. You don't know shit. We don't know shit. Trying to say universally that you know, without a doubt that there is no God, was no God, or Gods for that matter....is fucking arrogant beyond all belief. Yet, they openly insult people who are essentially equivalent to them in opposition. Ummm? This makes no sense to me.

Every time I hear "religion is just there to placate the uneducated" or some such nonsense, I want to break a retard's jaw so they can have time to think before the next time they have to open it.

I'm not even religious, either. I absolutely in no way "subscribe" to any belief system. I just don't suck that big pretentious cock named Atheism and guzzle imaginary superiority from its head.

[Zanchief]

This is the thing that bugs me about atheists. They claim the same shit that is both not able to be proved, but on the opposite spectrum, and feel they are superior for this belief.



Almost every atheist I have ever come in contact with thinks that they are superior to anyone with a belief other than their own. They look down on people who have other beliefs, and have no problems spewing their derision of said believers.

I try to look at existence from a logical standpoint, myself. You don't know shit. We don't know shit. Trying to say universally that you know, without a doubt that there is no God, was no God, or Gods for that matter....is fucking arrogant beyond all belief. Yet, they openly insult people who are essentially equivalent to them in opposition. Ummm? This makes no sense to me.

Every time I hear "religion is just there to placate the uneducated" or some such nonsense, I want to break a retard's jaw so they can have time to think before the next time they have to open it.

I'm not even religious, either. I absolutely in no way "subscribe" to any belief system. I just don't suck that big pretentious cock named Atheism and guzzle imaginary superiority from its head.

Because it is a more educated conclusion and the vast majority of believers are blissfully ignorant about logic.

It's not about feeling better then other people, it's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence. This should be the goal of all people. There is no evidence that there is a God. There is a gargantuan amount of evidence that almost every word of what happened in the bible is factually incorrect. I guess all that magic stuff that's unprovable must be true though.

I guess the burden of proof to prove magic should be on me...yea that makes sense. Go out and prove to me that LOTR isn’t based on fact. If you come back with a conclusion that that’s nonsense then you’re just a h8er.

[Harrison]

Again, you're focusing on the incorrect thing but are far too jaded to look at it any other way.

Why is a God, Gods, or the equivalent bullshit because the bible is bullshit? (Your belief/words, not mine entirely...)

The bible, regardless of any lawyer-like clause in dogma, was written by men. It is fallible like all men are.

I personally can't understand the reasoning behind "The bible is obviously full of 99% imaginary shit, so religion is for the dumb."

If that truly is your only argument, or even your foundation for most, I'd look for better ones were I you. I haaaaaaaaate to say it, but I do not think argumentum ad ignorantiam is a good leg to stand on, either. (In your previous post, about lack of evidence blah blah blah)

Religions aren't insurance companies where you can pick and choose what is right and wrong and then receive your benefits in the mail. The universe doesn't apply itself that way. There is right and wrong in belief, in the logical sense.(not morally...that's subjective) We just have no fucking clue what is what.

I had more to say but I got sidetracked when my GF woke up, lol

[Zanchief]

You are welcome to say "I don't know and neither do you". I was of that opinion for years. I just didn't get involved in religious discussions since it didn't enter into my day to day life so why bother getting involved. I don't feel that way anymore. Stating argumentum ad ignorantiam for what can't be disproven opens up the world to things that any reasonable person knows isn't true. Ghosts aren't real. Magic isn't real. Vampires aren't real. Conservative values aren't real. I think we're at a place were we can put those things to bed. God is no different.

You can't discredit the bible and say Christianity is possible. It's entirely based on what is in the bible. We know it's all wrong. Why would we still believe in the unprovable stuff? The only thing that is the least beat plausible is stuff that can't be discredited because it's magic. If we open this stuff up then anything is possible and we're legitimizing all those fat wiccans that think they can conjure the wind and all that crap. I play D&D with a guy who is convinced he has real magic powers and if he believes hard enough he can positively affect the outcome of his dice. This is nonsense. I would hope we don't, as a civilized society, indulge this kind of stupidity.

[Harrison]

You are welcome to say "I don't know and neither do you". I was of that opinion for years. I just didn't get involved in religious discussions since it didn't enter into my day to day life so why bother getting involved. I don't feel that way anymore. Stating argumentum ad ignorantiam for what can't be disproven opens up the world to things that any reasonable person knows isn't true. Ghosts aren't real. Magic isn't real. Vampires aren't real. Conservative values aren't real. I think we're at a place were we can put those things to bed. God is no different.

You can't discredit the bible and say Christianity is possible. It's entirely based on what is in the bible. We know it's all wrong. Why would we still believe in the unprovable stuff? The only thing that is the least beat plausible is stuff that can't be discredited because it's magic. If we open this stuff up then anything is possible and we're legitimizing all those fat wiccans that think they can conjure the wind and all that crap. I play D&D with a guy who is convinced he has real magic powers and if he believes hard enough he can positively affect the outcome of his dice. This is nonsense. I would hope we don't, as a civilized society, indulge this kind of stupidity.

Actually, I can, and do.

There is absolutely no faulty reasoning in believing that it is entirely possible, and to me even more likely, that the basis for the bible has it right but the bible itself is bullshit.

I'm sure someone with a bit more sleep than me could explain that point better if I didn't explain it well enough.

I don't see why belief in X automatically excludes Y, and Z. I think this is more a trait of limited view than anything.

I believe existence has room for both a theistic and scientific belief structure that work hand in hand. Existence doesn't divide at religion.

If something exists, it exists. What you call it is irrelevant.

[Zanchief]

Because the bible is the entirety of everything that Christians believe in. Supposing other things based on new age beliefs is well and good, but it's not Christianity. Let’s remove Christianity then and move these into the realm of general theology since it seems that's what you’re getting at. An agnostic view point that we don't know there for it's possible. I'm cool with that point of view, but, to me, that's a position of someone who's pretty much 99% sure something is false, but hey you never no so I'll let other people have at it. This is not a faith based position. It's an ass covering position.

I'm comfortable saying that things that have never been proven, work contrary to the way we know the world works, defy all laws of physics, defy all logic and their invention can be traced to be clear and precise human behaviour, can be discredited.

If you want to say the idea of a Deity is possible, you have to also say that the idea that Scientology has a basis in reality is also possible. I could also say that I am a superhero, and you would have to believe this equally because you can't disprove it.

The concept of a Deity holds no water since you only want there to be a reason, but if the existence of a greater power gives your life meaning, then what gives his life meaning, an even greater Deity then him? If simply the absence of truth about the meaning of life is all the proof you need that there could be a Deity, then this Deity would also have the same moral quandary. This logic carries infinitely, with each being infinitely more powerful then the next. It’s just silly.
But we do know why we'd create such a thing. Why each civilization has created a deity. Fear. Nothing has changed.