What do you think is more harmful to the world? Racists, or religious fanatics?

[titan_tim]

Did some research, i was thinking of something else, and was wrong. Antitheism is the objection of religion, not the discrimination of religious people.

Ah, that's nice to see! Although I'll just correct you on one small thing.
- Atheism isn't the objection of religion, but just a lack of belief of a god.
- Theism is the belief in a god or creator figure.
- Religion takes theism to the next step, which is the worship of that god / creator figure.

Post automatically merged: Jun 23, 2023

Any government exist thanks to religion (once again, remember Middle Ages) or there wouldn't be "holy-days" on a calendar (any calendar), and many "official" activities in any given country would not be related to religious matters.

Governments don't exist due to religion. They get taken over by them. The middle ages were specifically that. The church started charging for their penances and became rich. They also had kings worry about their afterlife, and charged them insane amounts for their penance. Once they became as rich and powerful as the monarchy, and ran amok.

Also, there were calendars long before the calendar that we use today. Yes, it would be very different, but we'd still be keeping track of days. Same with holidays. We wouldn't have the same holidays we have today, but there would most definitely be other days to relax.

It's like people saying that religion is amazing because it produces so much art. Yes, there are lots of pictures depicting religious figures. That doesn't mean that art would just cease to exist. We'd have different pictures/sculptures.

 

[tabzer]

So then you agree Religion is an institution. Why? Because it is a business none the less, and its managed by non religious leaders.

Also, anything that's religious must (in some way or another) represent or be related to a religion, there's no other way. Its etymologically simple and direct.

By being "anti-politics" they're politizing the fact. It's like when you say you're supporting a group against another one but don't have anything against the latter.

Any government exist thanks to religion (once again, remember Middle Ages) or there wouldn't be "holy-days" on a calendar (any calendar), and many "official" activities in any given country would not be related to religious matters.

Religion is not an institution by definition. Culture and religion can be synonymous.

Non-engagement in politics isn't "politizing". Contribution doesn't mean governance.

You can thank government for religion and vice-versa. Rome hijacked a spiritual/humanitarian movement and created a state religion. Jesus, "God", or Krishna didn't do that, unless you want to argue that they are inside everything.

 

[Xzi]

Religion is not an institution by definition. Culture and religion can be synonymous.

Religion is institutional by definition, we've been over this. You can practice faith alone in your one bedroom apartment, you have religious gatherings at fancy prosperity gospel megachurches. Faith can be a part of culture, but it's never the whole thing, and therefore never synonymous.

You can thank government for religion and vice-versa. Rome hijacked a spiritual/humanitarian movement and created a state religion. Jesus, "God", or Krishna didn't do that, unless you want to argue that they are inside everything.

On that we agree, but people are free to abandon religion whenever they so please, and the trend is they have actually been doing so in large numbers recently.

 

[tabzer]

Religion is institutional by definition, we've been over this. You can practice faith alone in your one bedroom apartment, you have religious gatherings at fancy prosperity gospel megachurches. Faith can be a part of culture, but it's never the whole thing, and therefore never synonymous.

"Culture" and "religion" have been synonymous, and the future's history will show that it even happens now. You have faith in whatever bologna you believe.

 

[Xzi]

"Culture" and "religion" have been synonymous, and the future's history will show that it even happens now. You have faith in whatever bologna you believe.

You don't have to "believe in" culture, the impact and history of various cultures throughout time is observable to this day. You can have your own interpretation of a culturally significant piece of art, but that piece still exists even if you ignore its existence. Contributing to any given culture does not require a leap of faith.

 

[tabzer]

You don't have to "believe in" culture, the impact and history of various cultures throughout time is observable to this day. You can have your own interpretation of a culturally significant piece of art, but that piece still exists even if you ignore its existence. Contributing to any given culture does not require a leap of faith.

You don't have to "believe in" religion. You are struggling to be relevent. Being apart of culture requires faith. Nobody mentioned "leap of faith". When religion is synonymous with culture, there is no "leap". It's simply the way to live, like it is with you and being an American. It's easy to have faith when the cult provides for you.

 

[Xzi]

You don't have to "believe in" religion. You are struggling to be relevent. Being apart of culture requires faith. Nobody mentioned "leap of faith". When religion is synonymous with culture, there is no "leap". It's simply the way to live, like it is with you and being an American. It's easy to have faith when the cult provides for you.

You're right, you don't actually need faith to participate in religion, that part of things is mostly one big circlejerk. Regardless, you're born with cultural heritage, zero faith required.

 

[Perisys1312]

Racism due to it's systemic nature that still has lasting effects to this day that create race and class disparities that often go hand-in-hand.

On a person-to-person level however, religious fanaticism for the fact that they will stop at nothing to attack you in the name of their sick "love" that's nothing more than hatred for a variety of harmless things they have arbitrarily assigned as "sin".

 

[tabzer]

You're right, you don't actually need faith to participate in religion, that part of things is mostly one big circlejerk. Regardless, you're born with cultural heritage, zero faith required.

I see that you bypass the circle jerk and just pleasure yourself in public. Faith predates religion, loser. As long as you are alive, you have it.

You can blame religion, guns, or even pronouns, but your own nihilism is cancelling you out faster than the rest of the world is.

 

[Xzi]

I see that you bypass the circle jerk and just pleasure yourself in public.

I wasn't aware that correcting one of your many misconceptions was equivalent to public masturbation. Guess that would make me a menace indeed.

Culture is rooted in historical fact. Religion is rooted in the desire for power, and thus it breeds deception and manipulation by its very nature.

 

[tabzer]

I wasn't aware that correcting one of your many misconceptions was equivalent to public masturbation. Guess that would make me a menace indeed.

I didn't introduce the sex talk into the metaphor; you did. It's literally a culmination of your own words with logic applied.

Culture is rooted in historical fact. Religion is rooted in the desire for power, and thus it breeds deception and manipulation by its very nature.

Culture is rooted in historic fact. It's a historic fact that people believed something, as a group. OMG. Fuck off, @Xzi. You just want to oblige people into doing things for you, creep.

 

[Xzi]

I didn't introduce the sex talk into the metaphor; you did. It's literally a culmination of your own words with logic applied.

Which makes zero sense outside of the context I presented it in. I didn't insult anyone, only an abstract concept, and yet you felt the need to take it personally anyway.

Culture is rooted in historic fact. It's a historic fact that people believed something, as a group. OMG. Fuck off, @Xzi. You just want to oblige people into doing things for you, creep.

The only thing I could possibly want from you is to better educate yourself so our conversations don't have to be so damn rudimentary all the time.

 

[tabzer]

Which makes zero sense outside of the context I presented it in.

What?

I didn't insult anyone, only an abstract concept,

It's called "history", and I kind of hate it too.

and yet you felt the need to take it personally anyway.

It's not personal, to me, that you are a loser. You are a loser, aren't you?

The only thing I could possibly want from you is to better educate yourself so our conversations don't have to be so damn rudimentary all the time.

I don't care for conversations with you. Most always it's you pretending not to be a neckbeard.

 

[Xzi]

It's called "history", and I kind of hate it too.

Religion is more politics than history really, and a means to divide people for the most petty possible reasons.

It's not personal, to me, that you are a loser. You are a loser, aren't you?

I'll gladly take "loser" over egotistical dipshit who has to turn every small bit of constructive criticism into a mudslinging contest.

I don't care for conversations with you. Most always it's you pretending not to be a neckbeard.

They're mostly you trying and failing to project the image that you know anything about anything. In the end it all translates to "I'm ignorant and opinionated."

 

[tabzer]

Religion is more politics than history really, and a means to divide people for the most petty possible reasons.

Yay, you are interested in the politicization of religion. Not really my concern nor a refutation of anything I said. As I suggested; you are being irrelevant.

I'll gladly take "loser" over egotistical dipshit who has to turn every small bit of constructive criticism into a mudslinging contest.

Subverting conversation and points people are trying to make is not "constructive criticism". Nobody is here for your "constructive criticism", even if it is well intentioned. You are just being an asshole. Funny comment btw, a concentrated package for a therapist.

They're mostly you trying and failing to project the image that you know anything about anything. In the end it all translates to "I'm ignorant and opinionated."

Your guile is impressive.

 

[mikefor20]

Religion is more politics than history really, and a means to divide people for the most petty possible reasons.


I'll gladly take "loser" over egotistical dipshit who has to turn every small bit of constructive criticism into a mudslinging contest.


They're mostly you trying and failing to project the image that you know anything about anything. In the end it all translates to "I'm ignorant and opinionated."

Wasting your time. Tabzer is always trolling. Insults and nonsense. Don't feed the troll

 

[lolcatzuru]

What?



It's called "history", and I kind of hate it too.



It's not personal, to me, that you are a loser. You are a loser, aren't you?



I don't care for conversations with you. Most always it's you pretending not to be a neckbeard.

he's got DID, he actively switches between alters to try to win the conversation.

 

[Xzi]

Yay, you are interested in the politicization of religion. Not really my concern nor a refutation of anything I said.

Let me put it this way then: history ultimately doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of greedy old men arguing about how to best interpret a work of fiction to their own benefit. All religion was ever good for was slowing progress, so if you wanna call it "history," it should stay in the past. Otherwise it just ends up producing garbage people like you.

Subverting conversation and points people are trying to make is not "constructive criticism". Nobody is here for your "constructive criticism", even if it is well intentioned.

Then you can simply not reply to it and let people who are actually here for conversation do it instead. "Faith vs religion" is actually a pretty interesting topic, but as with everything else, you make it seem shallow and boring with your total lack of insight.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Let me put it this way then: history ultimately doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of greedy old men arguing about how to best interpret a work of fiction to their own benefit. All religion was ever good for was slowing progress, so if you wanna call it "history," it should stay in the past. Otherwise it just ends up producing garbage people like you.


Then you can simply not reply to it and let people who are actually here for conversation do it instead. "Faith vs religion" is actually a pretty interesting topic, but as with everything else, you make it seem shallow and boring with your total lack of insight.

source on it being fiction?

 

[Xzi]

source on it being fiction?

We know it was written by men and amended several times. You really believe god said, "only LAND-OWNING MEN get any rights?" Or do you think maybe it was land-owning men who put that stuff in there?