Why would you argue about religion? - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:00 PM #1
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Why would you argue about religion?

What kind of petty and weak-minded religious zealot needs to argue about faith? What kind of fool needs reason for faith? When faith becomes the faith of the masses, when faith and reason become the same, totalitarianism, in thought and institutions, is the innevitable and necessary result. I ask all of you for only one thing: stop arguing, stop unintentionally denigrating your faith over the impossible task of explaining subjective passion. Some of you may say "but my faith can be proven!" and I ask you only this: why would you want it to be? And do not believe for a moment that this is an attack on religion; it isn't. This is an attack on institutionalizing faith, on the point where the fate of reason (which was dead from the start) is tied to the fate of faith (which was eternal all along). Nor are the so-called atheists exempt from my criticism. Keep in mind: a church does not require a god, only a hierarchy and a doctrine.
zack is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 12-10-2006, 07:04 PM #2
Mps2216
Control Yourself
 
Mps2216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
 has been a member for 10 years
Debating is fun. Get over it. I don't see the benefit of this thread which attacks everyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post
Keep in mind: a church does not require a god, only a hierarchy and a doctrine.
I think you got it backwards. A church only needs a god; hierarchy and doctrine are elements which are used to solidify the church.
__________________
WashU '12
SC Rage RKPB
Mps2216 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:08 PM #3
Em1Kid288
♥LOVE♥
 
Em1Kid288's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Things based off faith can't, and shouldn't, be proven, or they would no longer be based off faith, thus ruining the very idea of a faith based ideology. You are correct.
__________________
WE WON'T
STAND FOR
HAZY EYES
ANYMORE
Em1Kid288 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:08 PM #4
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mps2216 View Post
Debating is fun. Get over it. I don't see the benefit of this thread which attacks everyone.




I think you got it backwards. A church only needs a god; hierarchy and doctrine are elements which are used to solidify the church.
Polemics are, in this case, a means of control (or more properly our willing submission to it). You may all worship (or not worship) different things but you're slaves to the same framework of reason which a priori denies the possibility of subjective experience or personal passion. Something that I find quite revolting.

And no, you're wrong, God is the ultimate expression of hierarchy in the form of religious doctrine. God does not necessarily produce churches, hierarchal ordering and the limited distribution of truth necessarily express themselves as a repressive institution because people have already come to desire repressive (and safe) truths.
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:12 PM #5
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Ya know...if you don't want to argue, don't post here. Everyone wants to prove they're right, or at least explain their logic, its just natural.
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:14 PM #6
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Calling it "natural" is a cop out. I don't feel the need to explain my passions or convince others of them, why the hell would I? As for why I am even posting, I am far from content to let it slide because I think you're all selling yourselves short.
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:32 PM #7
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
i wouldn't argue about faith or religion. I will discuss it, though and present my opinions, but only if asked or in the case of this new forum assumed by the very existence of the forum. too many people and threads to have much of a discussion, still trying to figure out the place.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:33 PM #8
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post
Calling it "natural" is a cop out. I don't feel the need to explain my passions or convince others of them, why the hell would I? As for why I am even posting, I am far from content to let it slide because I think you're all selling yourselves short.
Well...sorry I like to learn what makes people tick, and debating logic is always a source of intellectual entertainment for me.
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:35 PM #9
Tippmann playa
Workin' dat insulin spike
 
Tippmann playa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nebraska
we arent arguing you dimwitted twit, we(most of us) are answering questions about each others religion
__________________
"If you are reading this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier."

"Originally posted by pillowpants: i dont know how to decipher this chart, then again, i do go to a community college."
"Originally posted by Mr.AmaZiN: did you just use an apostrophe for want?"
"Originally posted by pb123456789: Or call her a **** and proceed to textrape her."
"Originally posted by dualimpact: They haven't walked in on me but they know, I'm a screamer."
Tippmann playa is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:43 PM #10
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
I'm all down with sharing ideas in an open manner, what I'm against is holding faith to the standard of logic or reason.

Tippmann playa: I've been posting here for four years, I know where 90% of religion threads end up. I find it particullarly ironic that a person with "christ krew" in their profile would have the nerve to say that there's no argumentation or polemics involved, just friendly discussion. You practice the religion of the rabble, you are just as guilty of reducing faith to the faith of the herd as anyone else.

Last edited by zack : 12-10-2006 at 07:45 PM.
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:52 PM #11
Mps2216
Control Yourself
 
Mps2216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post
Polemics are, in this case, a means of control (or more properly our willing submission to it). You may all worship (or not worship) different things but you're slaves to the same framework of reason which a priori denies the possibility of subjective experience or personal passion. Something that I find quite revolting.

And no, you're wrong, God is the ultimate expression of hierarchy in the form of religious doctrine. God does not necessarily produce churches, hierarchal ordering and the limited distribution of truth necessarily express themselves as a repressive institution because people have already come to desire repressive (and safe) truths.
How am I subject to the priori which denies subjective experience and personal passion if I do not adhere to such a framework?

And hierarchy and limited distribution of truth does not necessarily produce a church. This would mean that the Nazi regime was a church. For a church to be a church, I would assert that it needs a god.
__________________
WashU '12
SC Rage RKPB
Mps2216 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:55 PM #12
Tippmann playa
Workin' dat insulin spike
 
Tippmann playa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nebraska
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post

Tippmann playa: I've been posting here for four years, I know where 90% of religion threads end up. I find it particullarly ironic that a person with "christ krew" in their profile would have the nerve to say that there's no argumentation or polemics involved, just friendly discussion. You practice the religion of the rabble, you are just as guilty of reducing faith to the faith of the herd as anyone else.
congratulations on your 4 years of ST service buti will admit that abunch of immature teenagers are arguing but mainly people are just trying to get a point across. People ask me a question about Christianity and il gladly answer it for them. Im not trying to convert them or anything just merely trying to inform them
__________________
"If you are reading this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier."

"Originally posted by pillowpants: i dont know how to decipher this chart, then again, i do go to a community college."
"Originally posted by Mr.AmaZiN: did you just use an apostrophe for want?"
"Originally posted by pb123456789: Or call her a **** and proceed to textrape her."
"Originally posted by dualimpact: They haven't walked in on me but they know, I'm a screamer."
Tippmann playa is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:58 PM #13
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mps2216 View Post
1. How am I subject to the priori which denies subjective experience and personal passion if I do not adhere to such a framework?

2. And hierarchy and limited distribution of truth does not necessarily produce a church. This would mean that the Nazi regime was a church. For a church to be a church, I would assert that it needs a god.
1. Well, I'm not sure how you could know whether you participate in such a moral image of thought and faith if you don't know what the hell I'm saying. It's "a priori" and it's an adjective. I'm not sure what the **** you believe and I'm not sure why you're asking me a question that boils down to "why am I X when I'm not X".
2. It's a functional interpretation of a church, not a cultural one. Nazism is, by my definition, a religious doctrine in that it relies on a certain a-empirical teleological element (IE the march of humanity towards the perfect Aryan race) which produces certain moral prescriptions and is ultimately repressive to all involved. Fascism is always religious, even if it has no religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippmann playa View Post
congratulations on your 4 years of ST service buti will admit that abunch of immature teenagers are arguing but mainly people are just trying to get a point across. People ask me a question about Christianity and il gladly answer it for them. Im not trying to convert them or anything just merely trying to inform them
Then I'm not talking to you, kindly move along.

Though if you think my criticism is simply one of trying to convert people you need to go back and read my posts again.
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 07:58 PM #14
SuperSupra619 (Banned)
Celebrate Diversity
 
SuperSupra619's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Jersey
 has been a member for 10 years
whether or not god exists, and he does, my religion helps me be a better person overall. Do you know how many urges I have had to do bad things, but didn't because it was sin? Drugs and Alcohol are hard to not do when you are at a party (I sometimes give in, im not perfect), but things like stealing, fighting, all other things that society would consider wrong, my faith prevents me from doing that. So even if there wasnt a god(which I strongly believe there is) i have no regrets with following my religion.
SuperSupra619 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 08:01 PM #15
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Would you have doubts even if religion didn't make you a "better person"? If it didn't positively impact the things you do, only the way you feel them, would it still be worth it whether or not God exists? (I like where you're going with this)
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 08:06 PM #16
SuperSupra619 (Banned)
Celebrate Diversity
 
SuperSupra619's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Jersey
 has been a member for 10 years
Yes. So far in islam I have never had to ask a question. Just reading the Qur'an answered every question I had, there are no holes.

Anyway, if I know what I am doing is wrong, but I do them anyway, that is not the problem of the religion, that is the problem with myself, so I really don't know how to answer your question. Word it differently maybe?
SuperSupra619 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 08:06 PM #17
Mps2216
Control Yourself
 
Mps2216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post
1. Well, I'm not sure how you could know whether you participate in such a moral image of thought and faith if you don't know what the hell I'm saying. It's "a priori" and it's an adjective. I'm not sure what the **** you believe and I'm not sure why you're asking me a question that boils down to "why am I X when I'm not X".
2. It's a functional interpretation of a church, not a cultural one. Nazism is, by my definition, a religious doctrine in that it relies on a certain a-empirical teleological element (IE the march of humanity towards the perfect Aryan race) which produces certain moral prescriptions and is ultimately repressive to all involved. Fascism is always religious, even if it has no religion.

Then I'm not talking to you, kindly move along.

Though if you think my criticism is simply one of trying to convert people you need to go back and read my posts again.
When you referred to "Priori" I assumed you were referring to a prior, one who is head of a priory, or church. You said we were a slave to a framework of reason that ultimately doesn't allow for personal input. This is total bull****. But whatever floats your boat

2. You're debating semantics. It all depends on what you define as a religion. If I define religion as requiring a supernatural deity, than Nazism is in no way a religion. I don't care how straightforward or how singular its goals are, its not a religion and does not involve a church.
__________________
WashU '12
SC Rage RKPB
Mps2216 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 08:13 PM #18
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mps2216 View Post
1. When you referred to "Priori" I assumed you were referring to a prior, one who is head of a priory, or church. You said we were a slave to a framework of reason that ultimately doesn't allow for personal input. This is total bull****. But whatever floats your boat

2. You're debating semantics.
1. Woah...what a strange coincidence...that's really odd
2. Then stop debating semantics and start debating the point I'm making. Ultimately, there is no qualitative difference between atheism, christianity and nazism, just a difference in degree. They all produce a moral image of thought and action that you willingly slave yourself to (because, after all, reason is just a person obeying herself, God is infinitely perfect and Hitler shined a light into the darkness of post-war Germany). You can call it a courthouse, a church or a camp: it serves the same purpose.
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 08:25 PM #19
Mps2216
Control Yourself
 
Mps2216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post
1. Woah...what a strange coincidence...that's really odd
2. Then stop debating semantics and start debating the point I'm making. Ultimately, there is no qualitative difference between atheism, christianity and nazism, just a difference in degree. They all produce a moral image of thought and action that you willingly slave yourself to (because, after all, reason is just a person obeying herself, God is infinitely perfect and Hitler shined a light into the darkness of post-war Germany). You can call it a courthouse, a church or a camp: it serves the same purpose.
If you think one is a slave to himself because he adheres by his logic and rationale, than you need to seriously reconsider your claims. Do you not realize how counter-intuitive that is? I'm not obeying myself, I'm listening to myself. But I don't just listen to myself. I listen to everything. I consider everything. If I were to implement your logic here, I am a slave to the universe. I mean no ****, I'm limited to my physical self and the mind which guides it. But what point does that prove?

Atheism is by-product of my rationale, experiences, and realizations. However I don't believe I'm a slave to said rationale, experiences, and realizations.
__________________
WashU '12
SC Rage RKPB
Mps2216 is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 09:54 PM #20
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
There's (at least) two ways to think. The first holds thought to some higher standard (rationality, the Word of God, social values etc) in the name of achieving some desired goal. This kind of thought requires a division between subject and object (so that the subject can represent a self-same object and so that representation of that object doesn't have unpredictable effects on the thinking subject), a division between objects (so that objects affect each other in predictable ways, such as through the concept of causality), the absolute power of the human mind (so that it is indeed possible to know the Truth), the objective existence of the desired goal (the existend of Truth or God or whatever) and a moral prescription to move from falsity to truth. The second image of thought is not an image at all, rather, it is the lived experience of thought. It has no extrinsic goal, higher justification or objective measure. It produces a world rather than represents one. This is the realm of passion, of subjective experience that exceedes our ability to communicate (as true faith does). It does not require a certain world to operate as it is not grounded in abstract metaphysical and epistemological principles and lies purely in the realm of lived experience. It is the first thing that happens when you wake up in the morning and open your eyes, the passage from your dreams into a world that you help create.
zack is offline  
Old 12-10-2006, 10:16 PM #21
Mps2216
Control Yourself
 
Mps2216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack View Post
There's (at least) two ways to think. The first holds thought to some higher standard (rationality, the Word of God, social values etc) in the name of achieving some desired goal. This kind of thought requires a division between subject and object (so that the subject can represent a self-same object and so that representation of that object doesn't have unpredictable effects on the thinking subject), a division between objects (so that objects affect each other in predictable ways, such as through the concept of causality), the absolute power of the human mind (so that it is indeed possible to know the Truth), the objective existence of the desired goal (the existend of Truth or God or whatever) and a moral prescription to move from falsity to truth. The second image of thought is not an image at all, rather, it is the lived experience of thought. It has no extrinsic goal, higher justification or objective measure. It produces a world rather than represents one. This is the realm of passion, of subjective experience that exceedes our ability to communicate (as true faith does). It does not require a certain world to operate as it is not grounded in abstract metaphysical and epistemological principles and lies purely in the realm of lived experience. It is the first thing that happens when you wake up in the morning and open your eyes, the passage from your dreams into a world that you help create.
I have one problem with the first "way to think". You're assuming there is a desired goal. Essentially, why could something such as atheism not just be a product of this purely "lived experience". I get the idea that you're claiming I'm hindered or grounded by the principle that god does not exist. Certainly if god presented himself, that principle would change. My point is, no matter how subjective or how Zen your life is, you're still going to maintain thoughts and opinions. These thoughts and opinions, however non-influential they are on your life, are still going to be there. They're still going to develop and change. No matter how much you don't want to consider truth, you're mind is going to induce thought. You can't prevent it. Whether you chose to acknowledge or embrace these thoughts doesn't really make a difference. You're no different than the rest of us.
__________________
WashU '12
SC Rage RKPB
Mps2216 is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump