Rollin' fer Jeezus

[Balto]

I'm pretty sure it's firmly rooted in the history of Christians flat out torturing and murdering people who were not Christians and even torturing and murdering other Christians for not being the correct type of Christian.

Alot of people are still pretty upset about that.

Yeah there is a lot of shitty history.

It is not really unique to Christianity though. It is not even unique to religion. Pretty much all of history involves groups of people being shitty to other groups of people. It's happened with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, pagan religions, and even places without any major religion at all (most of the history of China for example).

I think ultimately the bad stuff in history is mostly the fault of humans being shitty and greedy.

 

[Shemhazai]

I've been an agnostic for 20 years.

Since this thread already went to hell, I'd just like to say that I never understood the deal with agnostics who make a big point about being agnostic as opposed to being atheistic - often while actively criticizing atheists for being arrogant or bigoted.

Agnosticism is a given; nobody knows anything for sure, regardless of what they may believe, and apart from the truly hardcore religious who maintain that their personal conviction is somehow infallible (a kind of hubris that is not very pious, if you ask me), people of all faiths will generally admit to this fact. So the label 'agnostic' is really superfluous, as uncertainty exists regardless, and the only question is whether you have some kind of faith. If you do not actively subscribe to any idea of a deity, then you are - by default - an atheist, i.e. someone without faith in a god.

*Cue shitstorm*

 

[Uchi Mata]

Since this thread already went to hell, I'd just like to say that I never understood the deal with agnostics who make a big point about being agnostic as opposed to being atheistic - often while actively criticizing atheists for being arrogant or bigoted.

Agnosticism is a given; nobody knows anything for sure, regardless of what they may believe, and apart from the truly hardcore religious who maintain that their personal conviction is somehow infallible (a kind of hubris that is not very pious, if you ask me), people of all faiths will generally admit to this fact. So the label 'agnostic' is really superfluous, as uncertainty exists regardless, and the only question is whether you have some kind of faith. If you do not actively subscribe to any idea of a deity, then you are - by default - an atheist, i.e. someone without faith in a god.

*Cue shitstorm*

Atheist literally means 'without God', though the common meaning is a strong belief in the non-existence of God. I can't say I hold to that, because while I think it's unlikely you can't disprove the existence of anything. I do feel like most religious people will go to the mat over the existence of God, so I would say that calling them agnostic is false. Besides, we all know what the terms mean in common parlance: religious people believe in God, agnostic people don't but they don't feel strongly about it, atheists don't and they feel very strongly about it.

I think it's funny you say 'uncertainty exists regardless'. I agree with you completely, but I think you're being naive about the degree of utter faith many if not most religious people have in God's existence. They may debate the nature of God or religious beliefs, but I find they don't have a lot of doubt about the basic tenet of God's existence.

 

[lechien]

For what it is worth, I gonna give my 2 cents to the debate.

I am actually happy about Atos and what they stand for. It is providing us with a new role model.

It is giving a breeze of fresh air into the community that is notorios for a macho attitude.

It might encourage other teams and people that are unhappy with the current mentality of their BJJ group and instructor.

I am reffering to the TUF looking guys with tats, cauliflowers, shaved skulls, wearing skulls t shirts, walking about pits, driving big black trucks, not smiling at comps and stayin in their pack mentality etc..

 

[seatea]

Take North Korea as an example. It is a completely atheist government, but the government still has plenty of laws telling you what you can or can't do with your life. Prostitution is illegal there because it is considered immoral. Morality is not seen as related to religion at all.

I disagree about North Korea not being religious; they essentially worship Kim Il-sung. The cult of personality around him is the de facto state religion.

 

[Shemhazai]

Atheist literally means 'without God', though the common meaning is a strong belief in the non-existence of God. I can't say I hold to that, because while I think it's unlikely you can't disprove the existence of anything. I do feel like most religious people will go to the mat over the existence of God, so I would say that calling them agnostic is false. Besides, we all know what the terms mean in common parlance: religious people believe in God, agnostic people don't but they don't feel strongly about it, atheists don't and they feel very strongly about it.

I know the colloquial definition of atheist (probably due to the rise of the false atheist/agnostic dichotomy, IMO) has come to be someone who is certain that no god exists, but I don't accept this definition at all, and neither do most self-proclaimed atheists (which should be somewhat relevant), at least in my experience.

I reject the idea of God for the exact same reasons that I reject all other ideas for the veracity of which there is no real evidence. On a philosophical level, I don't deny the idea of God any more than I deny the idea of unicorns, Russell's celestial teapot, or the claim that my pathological liar of a cousin saw a crocodile in his driveway the other day, but couldn't get his iPhone camera to work. I just find myself rejecting the idea of God more actively, and more often, because it tends to be a bit of an inescapable topic in our society, as opposed to, say, the existence of unicorns, teapots orbiting our neighboring planets, or crocodiles in Norwegian driveways.

I just refuse to accept that atheism is some kind of 'extreme' view, or even a conviction in itself. It is an entirely passive intellectual position; some of us just feel the need to speak out loudly because so many just don't get it.

I think it's funny you say 'uncertainty exists regardless'. I agree with you completely, but I think you're being naive about the degree of utter faith many if not most religious people have in God's existence. They may debate the nature of God or religious beliefs, but I find they don't have a lot of doubt about the basic tenet of God's existence.

Like I said, certain hardcore religious folk probably won't even accept the possibility that their claim to the truth could be erroneous, but I think the vast majority of even the practicing religious will answer "well ... yes," if truly pressed on the question: "Is it possible that you are wrong?" Then again, maybe I am naive.

 

[Shemhazai]

I disagree about North Korea not being religious; they essentially worship Kim Il-sung. The cult of personality around him is the de facto state religion.

Christopher Hitchens actually went so far as to say that North Korea is the most religious state of all. (And the world's only existing necrocracy.)

 

[seatea]

crocodiles in Norwegian driveways.

Haha, I love the way some bullshitters never even try to come up with believable stuff.




...What was this thread about again?

 

[deadlizard]

Yeah there is a lot of shitty history.

It is not really unique to Christianity though. It is not even unique to religion. Pretty much all of history involves groups of people being shitty to other groups of people. It's happened with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, pagan religions, and even places without any major religion at all (most of the history of China for example).

I think ultimately the bad stuff in history is mostly the fault of humans being shitty and greedy.

Buddism.

Anywho, the Roman empire had it right allowing you to worship any religion as long as you pledge your alligence to Ceasar.

Of course Christians didn't want to do that.

 

[dirtypablo]

For what it is worth, I gonna give my 2 cents to the debate.

I am actually happy about Atos and what they stand for. It is providing us with a new role model.

It is giving a breeze of fresh air into the community that is notorios for a macho attitude.

It might encourage other teams and people that are unhappy with the current mentality of their BJJ group and instructor.

I am reffering to the TUF looking guys with tats, cauliflowers, shaved skulls, wearing skulls t shirts, walking about pits, driving big black trucks, not smiling at comps and stayin in their pack mentality etc..

Why didnt Andre compete at worlds last year?

 

[Vitamin C]

How is babby formed?
How get girl pragnent?

 

[Balto]

Christopher Hitchens actually went so far as to say that North Korea is the most religious state of all. (And the world's only existing necrocracy.)

I get the line of thinking that groups North Korea as a religion, but that is a very expansive definition of religion. By something that broad, atheists are also religious in the sense that they adhere to a belief system. You could call it Scienceism or Reasonianity or something like that.

I was using the dictionary style definition of religion which means it believes in at least one god.

 

[Vitamin C]

On a more serious note.

I reject the idea of God for the exact same reasons that I reject all other ideas for the veracity of which there is no real evidence. On a philosophical level, I don't deny the idea of God any more than I deny the idea of unicorns, Russell's celestial teapot, or the claim that my pathological liar of a cousin saw a crocodile in his driveway the other day, but couldn't get his iPhone camera to work. I just find myself rejecting the idea of God more actively, and more often, because it tends to be a bit of an inescapable topic in our society, as opposed to, say, the existence of unicorns, teapots orbiting our neighboring planets, or crocodiles in Norwegian driveways.

I just refuse to accept that atheism is some kind of 'extreme' view, or even a conviction in itself. It is an entirely passive intellectual position; some of us just feel the need to speak out loudly because so many just don't get it.

Totally down with this.
Dawkins-Brofist.jpg

Like I said, certain hardcore religious folk probably won't even accept the possibility that their claim to the truth could be erroneous, but I think the vast majority of even the practicing religious will answer "well ... yes," if truly pressed on the question: "Is it possible that you are wrong?" Then again, maybe I am naive.

The other part of that whole issue is that a person who believes in one god is in essence atheist in every other religion. A Christian rejects the existence of Allah, Zeus, Thor, Hecate, Osirus and Ra. Athiests just take it one god further.

Good grappling talk guys. I think this thread has taken my game to the next level.

I get the line of thinking that groups North Korea as a religion, but that is a very expansive definition of religion. By something that broad, atheists are also religious in the sense that they adhere to a belief system. You could call it Scienceism or Reasonianity or something like that.

I was using the dictionary style definition of religion which means it believes in at least one god.

Many men have been deified in the past. Jesus, Buddah, Ceasar. That's pretty well how gods tend to start.

 

[Balto]

Buddism.

Anywho, the Roman empire had it right allowing you to worship any religion as long as you pledge your alligence to Ceasar.

Of course Christians didn't want to do that.

There have been some violent leaders that promoted Buddhism.

Tokugawa Ieyasu made Buddhism his state religion in that he forced every person to be registered with a Buddhist temple to prove that he was not a Christian. If you did not register, you were tortured and put to death. You also needed a permit issued by your Buddhist temple to work or travel.

Tokugawa wasn't like a mass murderer, but he was a pretty brutal and effective warlord.

You're a bit off with how it worked in Rome. As a Roman, it was required that you worship the gods of Rome (Jupiter and friends). Rome also had a pretty inclusive view of religion, and they adopted the gods of the people they conquered. So you could also worship your own gods as well. You could worship as many others as you wanted, as long as you worshiped Jupiter et al.

The Christians objection was that they could only worship their god alone. This was considered treason, and they were fed to the lions for a few hundred years in response.

 

[yodaman]

If you really want to get technical, Yaweh, Allah, and the Christian God are all one in the same, based off of the Old Testament.

Also WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL HERE?! The question was answered on Page 2, and then it became atheists vs. Christians Take Who Gives a Fuck at this point? I'm hitting my head at how this goes in circles. Repeatedly.

 

[Balto]

On a more serious note.


Totally down with this.
Dawkins-Brofist.jpg



The other part of that whole issue is that a person who believes in one god is in essence atheist in every other religion. A Christian rejects the existence of Allah, Zeus, Thor, Hecate, Osirus and Ra. Athiests just take it one god further.

Good grappling talk guys. I think this thread has taken my game to the next level.



Many men have been deified in the past. Jesus, Buddah, Ceasar. That's pretty well how gods tend to start.

Christians don't reject the existence of Allah. Allah just translates to God in Arabic. Arab Christians refer to God as Allah too.

Buddha is not deified. He is not a god in that religion (and whether it is technically a religion or not is debatable, but I'll say it is for simplicity).

Likewise, the North Korean guy is not deified either. The state is officially atheist.

One thing you guys need to do is get your facts on religions straight if you are going to make claims.

 

[Balto]

If you really want to get technical, Yaweh, Allah, and the Christian God are all one in the same, based off of the Old Testament.

Also WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL HERE?! The question was answered on Page 2, and then it became atheists vs. Christians Take Who Gives a Fuck at this point? I'm hitting my head at how this goes in circles. Repeatedly.

I just wish people would get basic facts right. I don't really care about personal beliefs, but people make up all this stuff that isn't even right historically. I guess it bothers me from a history and factual perspective more than anything else.

It bothers me because people hear Christian and immediately start telling me what I believe, even though most of it is utter nonsense that is not Christian belief nor is it even found anywhere in history. And then if you try to explain things clearly, nobody even bothers to listen.

I guess I should just get used to the ignorance, but it's kind of weird that people who think of themselves as being very scientific and enlightened won't even bother to research a topic to get the basic facts.

 

[Shemhazai]

I get the line of thinking that groups North Korea as a religion, but that is a very expansive definition of religion. By something that broad, atheists are also religious in the sense that they adhere to a belief system. You could call it Scienceism or Reasonianity or something like that.

I was using the dictionary style definition of religion which means it believes in at least one god.

Well, sure, you don't have to agree that the example of North Korea fits the semantic definition of 'religion'. I don't think Hitchens actually meant that either, he was taking some poetic liberty with that statement. His point, however, was that North Korea is held hostage by a dogmatic, authoritarian ideology (which some cynics may argue is very close to a definition of religion) - making it an intellectually dishonest example of atheism in practice. The tenets by which NK is governed are Juche, not atheism.

 

[Balto]

Well, sure, you don't have to agree that the example of North Korea fits the semantic definition of 'religion'. I don't think Hitchens actually meant that either, he was taking some poetic liberty with that statement. His point, however, was that North Korea is held hostage by a dogmatic, authoritarian ideology (which some cynics may argue is very close to a definition of religion) - making it an intellectually dishonest example of atheism in practice. The tenets by which NK is governed are Juche, not atheism.

Oh yeah, I agree with the broader definition. It is very dogmatic, and I see how it is very similar to a religion.

I was just pointing out that even atheism suffers from the bad people abusing it for power problem. I think ultimately that stuff happens no matter what the religion (or lack of religion) is.

 

[BigAlfTheCrane]

compulsory abortions for all