stevestojan Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 This is like arguing for anarchy because governments are sometimes messed-up. 227051[/snapback] Everything you've posted in this thread is a joke, right? I mean, no one can turn what was a rather lame joke into a racial issue, and then into an issue of government. LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Everything you've posted in this thread is a joke, right? I mean, no one can turn what was a rather lame joke into a racial issue, and then into an issue of government. 227059[/snapback] I wasn't complaining about the joke. But alaska seemed to be saying that this is an example of why we need to get rid of organized religion. If he believes in organized religion it's a different story; but it doesn't sound to me like he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Saw that on another message board. The guy ought to be declared "unclean" like they did with leppers 2000 years ago, and not let anywhere near a baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I wasn't complaining about the joke. But alaska seemed to be saying that this is an example of why we need to get rid of organized religion. If he believes in organized religion it's a different story; but it doesn't sound to me like he does. 227128[/snapback] If you can't agree that there are a plethora of problems with organized religion, than you are part of the problem, and not the solution... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I wasn't complaining about the joke. But alaska seemed to be saying that this is an example of why we need to get rid of organized religion. If he believes in organized religion it's a different story; but it doesn't sound to me like he does. 227128[/snapback] Where did I advocate "getting rid of" organized religion? Your conclusions are based on some defense mechanism that probably have something to do with your intellectual inadequacy. I don't believe any entity serves a good purpose after it reaches a certain size/scope of influence. Most organized religions are now about money and power at the highest level and seem to care little about their original missions. That said, I don't care if everyone else belongs to one. That's your right as an individual. Just as it's my right to think you're an idiot for doing so. I really appreciate your judgement on what it's OK for me to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Your conclusions are based on some defense mechanism that probably have something to do with your intellectual inadequacy. 227220[/snapback] HAHA, you of all people to talk about defense mechanisms. Every time someone disagrees with you, you throw out some little insult attempting to be witty. I wonder why you are so quick to snap at people? Perhaps attempting to hide some type of inadequacy....? There is a story about one guy in one religion, and you spread it out to ALL religions. I guess since Drew Bledsoe didn't work out for us, we should never try to play a 1st round qb? I mean there is plenty of evidence that first round qb's don't work out right? Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf...Gotta love first round qb's right? Sure, that rabbi has a problem. Sure, a lot of religions have problems, but to completely group all religions into one category is pretty unreasonable, much all other generalizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Any religion is only as good as the object of its worship. There's one true God, and one true religion: Biblical Christianity. Only problem is that it has to be carried out by imperfect men. Anyone looking for problems will surely find them... but not in the object of worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 HAHA, you of all people to talk about defense mechanisms. Every time someone disagrees with you, you throw out some little insult attempting to be witty. I wonder why you are so quick to snap at people? Perhaps attempting to hide some type of inadequacy....? There is a story about one guy in one religion, and you spread it out to ALL religions. I guess since Drew Bledsoe didn't work out for us, we should never try to play a 1st round qb? I mean there is plenty of evidence that first round qb's don't work out right? Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf...Gotta love first round qb's right? Sure, that rabbi has a problem. Sure, a lot of religions have problems, but to completely group all religions into one category is pretty unreasonable, much all other generalizations. 227315[/snapback] Except my opinion isn't based on one story about one religion. It's based on history. Wars, terrorist attacks, killing of innocents, molestation, etc. As I have stated many times here: A person is smart, people are stupid. You get enough people together with enough venom and you end up with a Frankenstien mob. Add ALOT of money to that equation and you have a recipe for disaster. Your analogy is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Except my opinion isn't based on one story about one religion. It's based on history. Wars, terrorist attacks, killing of innocents, molestation, etc. 227361[/snapback] Is my analogy not based on a history of first round qb's? Some first round qb's are good, just like some organized religions are good, and some first round qb's are bad, just like some organized religions are bad. I'd say it's a pretty good fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Where did I advocate "getting rid of" organized religion? Your conclusions are based on some defense mechanism that probably have something to do with your intellectual inadequacy. I don't believe any entity serves a good purpose after it reaches a certain size/scope of influence. Most organized religions are now about money and power at the highest level and seem to care little about their original missions. That said, I don't care if everyone else belongs to one. That's your right as an individual. Just as it's my right to think you're an idiot for doing so. I really appreciate your judgement on what it's OK for me to believe. 227220[/snapback] In the beginning of this post you call me an idiot for disagreeing with you, and at the end you complain about me being the one passing judgement. Suit yourself. The problem with your method of analysis of religion is that you're not comparing it to the alternative. Have groups of people guided by organized religion made mistakes? Sure. But those pale in comparison with the 61 million people murdered by the government of the Soviet Union; a nation that officially rejected religion of any kind. If you want an example of someone who took a milder approach to the rejection of religion, check out the FDR administration and his bombing of Dresden. In just two nights 60,000 - 500,000 innocent people were burned to death. People complain about witch burnings, and that's fine, so long as they also remember this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 In the beginning of this post you call me an idiot for disagreeing with you, and at the end you complain about me being the one passing judgement. Suit yourself. My statement was "I really appreciate your judgement on what it's OK for me to believe." I don't care what you believe - you have the right to be an idiot and we've witnessed you exercise that almost daily right here at the corral. The problem with your method of analysis of religion is that you're not comparing it to the alternative. Have groups of people guided by organized religion made mistakes? Sure. But those pale in comparison with the 61 million people murdered by the government of the Soviet Union; a nation that officially rejected religion of any kind. If you want an example of someone who took a milder approach to the rejection of religion, check out the FDR administration and his bombing of Dresden. In just two nights 60,000 - 500,000 innocent people were burned to death. People complain about witch burnings, and that's fine, so long as they also remember this! 227609[/snapback] I guess you missed the: "I don't believe any entity serves a good purpose after it reaches a certain size/scope of influence." That pretty much covers your two examples of "Godlessness" - even though F.D.R. was an Episcopalian (though he didn't practice publically when he was President). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 My statement was "I really appreciate your judgement on what it's OK for me to believe." I don't care what you believe - you have the right to be an idiot and we've witnessed you exercise that almost daily right here at the corral.I guess you missed the: "I don't believe any entity serves a good purpose after it reaches a certain size/scope of influence." That pretty much covers your two examples of "Godlessness" - even though F.D.R. was an Episcopalian (though he didn't practice publically when he was President). 227668[/snapback] If you were less quick to call people idiots for disagreeing with you, maybe you'd have a few more intelligent conversations, and a few fewer flame wars. So let's just go with the assumption that your itch to call people idiots is either a) a reflection of some inner need that flame wars obviously fulfill, or b) rote imitation of what everyone else on these boards seems to do. Either way, you've done nothing to impress me. As for organized religion; you basically bashed it while providing no real alternative. It's easy to be a critic, to point out why what someone else is doing has flaws. You seem to enjoy that role. The hard part is explaining how you would do things; a task which you've consistently neglected. If I were half so quick to jump to conclusions about you as you've been about me, I'd say the only debating tactic you know is argumentum ad hominum. As for FDR; he cheated on his wife repeatedly and shamelessly. Having discarded religious principles in his personal life, it seems reasonable to believe he ignored them in public life as well. Anyone who closely studies FDR will likely find that belief confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Except my opinion isn't based on one story about one religion. It's based on history. Wars, terrorist attacks, killing of innocents, molestation, etc. As I have stated many times here: A person is smart, people are stupid. You get enough people together with enough venom and you end up with a Frankenstien mob. Add ALOT of money to that equation and you have a recipe for disaster. Your analogy is stupid. 227361[/snapback] His analogy is NOT stupid. You didn't mention a single piece of history when you made your original attack on organized religion. You failed to mention a single war that religion had inspired, to reference a single terror attack, a single case where innocents were killed, or a single instance where religion had inspired someone to molest someone else. You have to admit that the molestation bit is a stretch even for you. The sole shred of an excuse for your attack on organized religion was a single article about a single practice from a single sect. Now let's say you liked organized religion. Let's also say that you'd come across a post attacking organized religion, with as little supporting evidence as you provided. Can you honestly convince me--or anyone else on these boards--that you would not instantly have attacked the intelligence of the poster? Attacking the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you seems to be a reflexive response for you; much like batting your eyes or scratching an itch. That's fine if you want to live your life surrounded by yes-men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 His analogy is NOT stupid. You didn't mention a single piece of history when you made your original attack on organized religion. You failed to mention a single war that religion had inspired, to reference a single terror attack, a single case where innocents were killed, or a single instance where religion had inspired someone to molest someone else. You have to admit that the molestation bit is a stretch even for you. The sole shred of an excuse for your attack on organized religion was a single article about a single practice from a single sect. Now let's say you liked organized religion. Let's also say that you'd come across a post attacking organized religion, with as little supporting evidence as you provided. Can you honestly convince me--or anyone else on these boards--that you would not instantly have attacked the intelligence of the poster? Attacking the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you seems to be a reflexive response for you; much like batting your eyes or scratching an itch. That's fine if you want to live your life surrounded by yes-men. 227804[/snapback] As far as the analogy goes, that's your opinion. Mine's different. The sun will rise tomorrow. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to teach basic history to make a simple point to another adult. The Crusades. September 11th. There you go. As to living my life surrounded by "yes men", you're gleening an awful lot from a message board and you're entitled to your opinion based on that. There are few successful people in life who haven't surrounded themselves with like-minded and similiarly driven individuals. If you want to call that "yes men" than so be it. That's pretty simplistic. I could care less if you like organized religion and feel free to post some feel good stories about it. You basically attacked a post that was a joke. I guess the Michael Jackson reset could have been a clue, but apparently not. We can carry this on as long as you like and you're not going to change my opinion (I'm not trying to change yours - I don't care). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Wow, this went to hell fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Wow, this went to hell fast! 227821[/snapback] What do you expect when a thread becomes about organized religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 As for organized religion; you basically bashed it while providing no real alternative. Here's an alternative: Do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. Not because some book tells you to...... Not because you'll burn in hell if you don't.... Not because of any exterior influence whatsoever..... Just do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Here's an alternative:Do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. Not because some book tells you to...... Not because you'll burn in hell if you don't.... Not because of any exterior influence whatsoever..... Just do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. 227833[/snapback] Too easy. Need some dude in a robe and a bunch of other lemmings to guilt me into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 LMAO. Ok dude, you're obsessed with this thread. Come over and we'll throw back a few beers instead. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 Here's an alternative:Do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. Not because some book tells you to...... Not because you'll burn in hell if you don't.... Not because of any exterior influence whatsoever..... Just do the right thing for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. Bingo. All religions teach these values. The role of "god" is of the ever-watchful eye to make sure you DO do those things when no physical person is looking. It's just a shame that religion has become so perverted, because it has its place for those who can't do the right thing on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts