Losing my Religion

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
. . . you don't need God to tell you directly that homosexual relations are unnatural.

I actually kinda liked you until this.

Ignorance from a book.

Of course, homosexual relations are natural - - - they are as God made them. It is not a choice.

Divorce however, is a choice.

a reply to: Annee

en.wikipedia.org... Homosexual Animal Behavior

It seems like the Wiki agrees with you too.

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: Annee

en.wikipedia.org... Homosexual Animal Behavior

It seems like the Wiki agrees with you too.

LOL, yes. I have been following this subject for about 20 years.

Man made lies, do not make things unnatural.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: SuperFrog
If you pay close enough attention to nature, you don't need God to tell you directly that homosexual relations are unnatural. There is no offspring. Nothing is produced. There is no fruit. Whether you believe in God or nature, there is nothing gained except for the temporary pleasure of the flesh.

Firstly, homosexuality occurs in other species, it is not solely monopolized by humans.

Sorry, wrapping your intolerance in candy wrapper filled with nice words just does not work for me...

As for not being fruitful relationship, I am sure that you are first to oppose homosexuals to adopt kids, we going back to unnatural (even its not).

So, what about couples that can't have kids for whatever reasons? All those unnatural cases... too sad some of them believe same nonsense like you do...

Care to explain why your god just dislikes some of his children... (or Jesus who was God for you, probably in the same sense Kurt Cobain was God for me with his music...

I married my wife even though I knew that she can't have children. According to one religious idiot I once argued with on this site, this should have prevented me from marrying her. Can we please move on from outdated superstition and myths from the Bronze and Iron Ages?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I married my wife even though I knew that she can't have children. According to one religious idiot I once argued with on this site, this should have prevented me from marrying her. Can we please move on from outdated superstition and myths from the Bronze and Iron Ages?

Wow. What an ass. This is why Religion is not innocent at all. It masks itself as being so; from a societal point of view we should respect it and not ask questions. Yet they spread crap like this and they don't even realize it. They are taught that evil notions like this are actually good, righteous actions.

Religion does nothing but turns good people into monsters.

Good for you for realizing that love is more important that societal views on what is "normalcy".

a reply to: Ghost147

"Wow. What an ass. This is why Religion is not innocent at all"

Please stop and think before you attribute all of religion onto one persons actions. That's like me saying all atheists are this and that; it's not as easy as that. The world is infinitely complex and we're all tiny observers, you should not generalise so easily.

"Religion does nothing but turns good people into monsters."

Well now I know you have to be joking. Sometimes, actually, you'll find religion turns 'monsters' (it's always easier to dehumanise someone when you view them as something other than human) into decent, law abiding people and gives them hope. What's your counter to that? In a none general manner please.


The fact your post has any stars at all is a sort of indictment of where this thread is, and provably would have headed regardless. Sad.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
. . . you don't need God to tell you directly that homosexual relations are unnatural.

I actually kinda liked you until this.

Ignorance from a book.

Of course, homosexual relations are natural - - - they are as God made them. It is not a choice.

Divorce however, is a choice.

he's not talking about it in the same way you are. he's not saying that it isn't the result of genetic variations. genetic variations are not the fault of the person. he's talking about it in the sense of bringing your body under your spirit's submission. mind over matter = spirit over flesh. it even suggests that if you can do this as a heterosexual, all the better, since it's not a commandment that you marry as a hetero, only a solution to the problem of being unable to control that aspect of your flesh.

jesus was all about learning to gain mastery over the body. there was no special proviso in there where he wasn't expecting homosexuals to at least try to do the same. it was an "one size fits all" teaching, since we all share 2 of the main aspects in common: flesh and spirit.

jesus is suggesting we have the ability to not let our foot do things we don't want it to do. hehe

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Ghost147

"Wow. What an ass. This is why Religion is not innocent at all"

Please stop and think before you attribute all of religion onto one persons actions. That's like me saying all atheists are this and that; it's not as easy as that. The world is infinitely complex and we're all tiny observers, you should not generalise so easily.

I didn't say all Christians are like that, I said religion isn't innocent. Religion teaches division between people, it teaches to not ask questions, it teaches to blindly obey, so on and so forth. The person who responded believed what he said directly because of the associated mentality which is mentioned within the religious texts he follows.

Atheism doesn't teach anything, it is entirely neutral. It has no opinions, therefore it is innocent. All actions an atheist takes is that of their own. But religion is a belief system. And those opinions that individual had were justified by his religious belief system.

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Ghost147
"Religion does nothing but turns good people into monsters."

Well now I know you have to be joking. Sometimes, actually, you'll find religion turns 'monsters' (it's always easier to dehumanise someone when you view them as something other than human) into decent, law abiding people and gives them hope. What's your counter to that? In a none general manner please.

Monstrous activity doesn't require someone to beat their wife, wish to keep slaves, or rape anyone. Monstrous can be much more subtle than that.

Let's say there was a couple who were exceptionally racist. They don't have to have a particular belief system, religion, or what have you, they are just extremely racist. So racist to the point that they organize a group of people to assault whatever race it is they dislike; maybe even kill them. Now, lets say that same couple has children. What do you think they are going to instil upon those children?

Chances are they are going to influence those children into also believing that other race is inferior and should be exterminated. This act of misinformation and hate is monstrous.

It can be even more subtle than that though. Let's say we have a couple who is devoutly religious. They believe in faith healing, they believe that science is bad, and all that fun stuff.

Their child gets sick, but they refuse to take that child to the doctor because they wish to instead pray for the child's health. That child's condition becomes worse and worse, and that child suffers a long, excruciating death.

But they have a second child, and they teach that child things like heaven and hell, and all their child's friends who are not of the same belief are inevitably going to burn in hell, being tortured for the rest of eternity. Imagine if that child really believed them? Psychologically, that concept of their friends being burnt non stop in a pit of fire for the rest of eternity makes them feel so bad and guilty that they break down every night because their friend just so happens to have been born in a family who doesn't share the same belief. Imagine the pain and suffering that child goes through "knowing" that their friends cannot be saved.

Now, humor me for a second and view this from my position. I don't believe any religions are correct. So what I see is the spreading of misinformation. The unnecessary suffering of children due to their parents' belief (which again, I find to be completely false). Or even just that that child now has these lies instilled within them for the years to come, preventing them from thinking for themselves, and believing in things which are ultimately false.

This is monstrous.

originally posted by: Joneselius

The fact your post has any stars at all is a sort of indictment of where this thread is, and provably would have headed regardless. Sad.

No, it's that others realize that religious ideologies are as damaging as I've portrayed them to be. Furthermore, it's incredibly frustrating to know that the people we are talking to, like yourself, are so deeply intertwined with this position and belief that it actually makes you believe that what others are saying for your benefit, in an effort to help you, is complete nonsense. It is entirely washed away by the misinformation that has been fed to you since your childhood.

That is the truly sad events that have taken place.

a reply to: Ghost147

do you think there's a general consensus on some subjects in the atheist community? like natural selection, for example?

misunderstandings about hell:

hell was called the grave. the reason this was so was because if the individual didn't want to claim their inheritance as a god in the family of god, after they died, their body wouldn't be resurrected from the grave. since the body was likened to a vehicle for carting your spirit around, like a bio-suit, it no longer had a purpose, as you didn't want it or your spirit, to be resurrected, so the body would turn back to dust and stay that way. but only if you didn't claim your inheritance. it doesn't go into detail but i have a theory that we are quantumly entangled with our "incorruptible body", which we only receive upon death, if we claim ownership. just a theory though. i like quantum physics.

a reply to: undo

I'm well aware of Spirit Energy. For me it doesn't belong in this discussion.

If it isnt "earthly" --- as in man-made religion. I have no comment.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: undo

I'm well aware of Spirit Energy. For me it doesn't belong in this discussion.

If it isnt "earthly" --- as in man-made religion. I have no comment.

jesus talks about it alot.

i have another theory that the holy spirit is future you, since once you claim your inheritance, the choice is made to receive access to your godhood, which naturally includes the ability to access points on your timeline. future you knows you intimately and is best at giving you advice. all you have to do is ask and listen. people who exhibit similar spiritual abilities may or may not be accessing their own timeline, as some negative entities may hijack the spirit and turn it to ill purpose. always best to make sure it's your god and not someone else's.

theoretically, of course.

a reply to: undo

I haven't seen any studies on the subject of Atheists and their commonalities, but from what I have seen I would say that (in your example), the majority of atheists do accept the Theory of Evolution, and the phenomena of natural selection.

Care to elaborate your point?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: undo

I haven't seen any studies on the subject of Atheists and their commonalities, but from what I have seen I would say that (in your example), the majority of atheists do accept the Theory of Evolution, and the phenomena of natural selection.

Care to elaborate your point?

just thinking that modern day science texts are like isolated ancient texts, in that it focuses on only one aspect of existence-- the physical. it's interesting. i was tracing it in my mind from the time of the enlightenment, in how the history books were modified on an incorrect premise, which was never corrected because "fairies" and how that leaked over into other areas. the development of human knowledge seems to be incredibly specialized now, with very little wiggle room.

for example, theoretical physicists frequently come up with things that the rest of the science community finds ridiculous. lol holographic universe, for example. oh that drives the "we have to see it and touch it" people, bonkers. quantum theory is like scifi to these guys. it's like the holy roman church basically refusing to look in the telescope.

quanitized planck length pixelated projections from the super massive black hole in the center of every galaxy. say that ten times real fast.

a reply to: undo

Science focuses on natural phenomena within the universe, not directly, or solely physical. All theories are put through the Scientific Method, and is peer reviewed. These theories are accepted or rejected based on how well their evidence supports their conclusions about whatever natural phenomenon they are attempting to explain.

So yes, there is "wiggle room".

I'm still not clear as to what point you were trying to make initially?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: undo

Science focuses on natural phenomena within the universe, not directly, or solely physical. All theories are put through the Scientific Method, and is peer reviewed. These theories are accepted or rejected based on how well their evidence supports their conclusions about whatever natural phenomenon they are attempting to explain.

So yes, there is "wiggle room".

I'm still not clear as to what point you were trying to make initially?

peer review is both a good and bad thing. good because it weeds out wrong stuff. bad because it weeds out stuff that disagrees with favored positions, particularly those put out by leaders in the scientific community, whether dead or living. this same thing happened with the science of the holy roman empire. they had favored positions, and the more clout the person had who suggested it, the less likely anyone was going to be able to say anything to the contrary. when the pope said it, that was it. it's an artifact of living on a planet where huge amounts of data are deliberately withheld from the public at large.

the priesthood of truth of those times, morphed into the priesthood of truth of these times. as a result you have "established" peer review, like a bunch of priests of truth, pronouncing the fate of new ideas or rather old ideas resurfacing (that is, if our planet has cyclical ages, which i think it does).

add to that, the chance for money and therefore power, to be made or lost, and it is just too tempting to silence things that may or may not be true. granted, the alternative may be so unsettling, that it's routinely ignored whether true or not. for example, even if the ancient greeks could write, the idea we should accept that ancient texts are valid documentaries of the past, was just unthinkable, because "fairies"

but here's the real clincher:

i was reading a website on the dating of digs. it was by some university or another, describing what they do during each phase of a dig. when an artifact is uncovered it goes thru phases before being submitted for consideration. if the geological strata in which an artifact is found, was dated beforehand, and the artifact appears visually to be out of place in the timeline, it is thrown away as contamination. imagine the amount of assumption that takes place in that moment. the reason given for this is: 1) not enough money to date each object found in a dig, 2) not enough people to do the dating. who knows what has been thrown away.

i said all that to say this: if you have a school of thought (science) that professes to be only interested in the truth, yet can be bribed into remaining silent, ignores alternative information that might rock the boat because "fairies" and tosses out artifacts based only on visual assessment, and this school of thought seems to be the shared view of atheists, doesn't that suggest that it is in danger of having the same problems as any prior school of thought? i think it does.

science is like a recipe for homemade ice cream written by a guy with vision problems, it seems accurate but some ingredients may be missing in the list. how can it be used like a gigantic fist to pound others into submission, when it has even been proven to fudge results, throw things out that don't agree with preconceived ideas and so on?

i am concerned that many are simply following holy roman empire part 2, when the papacy realizing it was losing parishoners by the thousands, opted to take charge again by releasing teeny tiny bits of hoarded knowledge from the past.