Woman burned alive for being a witch

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Well the kids should be put into a programme to give them early training to be Gurkhas... They they can come over to the UK, where I imagine Joanna Lumney will probably take them in! I know she has a soft spot for the Gurkhas and the Nepalese!

Hammeroj:

Volf99:
No, but you come off as sounding like you believe that religion is the primary cause of such behavior, which is nonsense. As I just pointed out, the PRC has proven full well that you don't need religion to commit monstrous acts.

Tell me, are you also against the concept of money? What about the consumption of alcohol? Do you oppose that as well, seeing as how it has ruined families and helps cause abusive parents/spouses? What about the ability to have a political opinion and vote? I mean those two things(political opinion and voting) have lead to war in the past, so why not get rid of those as well? The reason why I'm asking this is because it seems like you only want to focus on the negative side of religion and overlook the good that it does, and if that approach is applied to other things, than why not rally against the concept of money, drinking alcohol, having a political opinion and the ability to vote? Haven't the things I listed also cause problems in this world?

I think you need to take a more moderate/balance outlook on religion.

I said that religion is one of the crazy reasons people kill each other for. Read the post again. If you infer, again, that I think it's the only or even the biggest of the sources for violence, your reading comprehension will come into question.

No, I'm against unfounded beliefs, especially ones that happen to be destructive in one form or another. That Brejvik fellow who shot up close to a hundred people? Not in favor of him.

I think you need to take a more intellectual outlook on reality. I don't think I've said one thing that's even remotely wrong, and I wasn't being particularly insulting to religious people. If I, in fact, did, you're free to point out the flaws in my reasoning. This "be nice" shit that basically means "I don't want to hear it" won't affect me one bit. Not if you say it, not if a million people say it.

debrox:
Correlation does not equal causation. Leave the use of statistical argument to the big boys who understand it.

'Course it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean nothing, either.

I find it ironic that you call yourself a big boy, when "correlation does not equal causation" is one of the most used terms on this forum, and that's basically the entirety of your post.

Ad hominem does not equal a good argument.

It's a sad reflection on today's society when such things like this are still occurring around the world.

Hopefully one day we can rid ourselves of the kind of ignorance that produces these crimes.

Nearly every religion in existence is responsible for tyranny and pointless bloodshed. Religion is just a means for the privilged elite to control the uneducated and stupid of a population. IMO, the more educated a population becomes, the less religious they become. Scientific inquiry replaces superstition, egalitarianism replaces hierarchy, tolerance replaces hatred. Religion is a blight on humanity which needs to be abandoned in the 21st century. The positive aspects of religion have been incorporated into secular democratic society, it is time to move on.

This barbaric act shows how far behind the curve some nations really are. If nations like Nepal, Afganistan, Palestine or Israel ever want to develop into peaceful democratic nations, their populous needs to first abandon their hardcore religious beliefs, otherwise it is all a big waste of time...good luck.

debrox:
Ad hominem does not equal a good argument.

This coming from a person calling themselves a big boy with the implication that the person they're quoting isn't one. All I did was point out the irony of your statement.

RedBird:
People who make jokes about mothers brutally murdered for no reason in front of their 8 year old daughter are pretty damn close. Don't patronise to me and take 5 seconds to think before you get high and mighty. When it comes down to it I'm fairly certain you agree with me, Unless perhaps you'd like to laugh at this sort of thing? Go on, Tell me a joke about a modern day witch burning in front of a minor. I'm sure it'll be hilarious.

I'll keep this brief. I don't think people who joke about something - anything - are in any case worse than people who inflict actual bodily harm with no justification.

And I have no problem with black humor.

Hammeroj:

debrox:
Ad hominem does not equal a good argument.

This coming from a person calling themselves a big boy with the implication that the person they're quoting isn't one. All I did was point out the irony of your statement.

RedBird:
People who make jokes about mothers brutally murdered for no reason in front of their 8 year old daughter are pretty damn close. Don't patronise to me and take 5 seconds to think before you get high and mighty. When it comes down to it I'm fairly certain you agree with me, Unless perhaps you'd like to laugh at this sort of thing? Go on, Tell me a joke about a modern day witch burning in front of a minor. I'm sure it'll be hilarious.

I'll keep this brief. I don't think people who joke about something - anything - are in any case worse than people who inflict actual bodily harm with no justification.

And I have no problem with black humor.

Ad hominem tu quoque does not equal a good argument. But that was not part of my argument. It was just a conversational way to say whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

debrox:
Ad hominem tu quoque does not equal a good argument. But that was not part of my argument. It was just a conversational way to say whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Note: I'm barely responding at this point.

First, what you call your argument could barely even be described as a sentence. Don't refer to it as some supreme put down or drop of knowledge. Second, I did address your argument. Third, you have no basis on which to invoke the Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. All you're doing, twice in a row, is throwing latin at me, presumably in hopes that I'll cower in awe of your rhetorical skills.

waj9876:

Hammeroj:
"Moderates" see human sacrifice as a good thing. They celebrate a man's conviction to follow the voice in his head to the point of gutting his own son. The main difference is how far you're willing to go in the name of your professed beliefs.

And those are the extremists. The ones who pull this shit. Trust me, us "Normal" religious types are just as disgusted by this as everyone else.
---

OT: Eh, the only reason this is getting news coverage is because "Religion does it again!" sounds good. This kind of shit happens all over the world with no religion involved with barely any coverage.

inbefore someone says to me "HURR American AND religious? That's why *insert country/religion here* is so much better!" Seriously, the anti-American guys on this site are getting unoriginal.

I think that the Anti-Americans were getting old during the war of 1812.

Higgs303:
Nearly every religion in existence is responsible for tyranny and pointless bloodshed. Religion is just a means for the privilged elite to control the uneducated and stupid of a population. IMO, the more educated a population becomes, the less religious they become. Scientific inquiry replaces superstition, egalitarianism replaces hierarchy, tolerance replaces hatred. Religion is a blight on humanity which needs to be abandoned in the 21st century. The positive aspects of religion have been incorporated into secular democratic society, it is time to move on.

This barbaric act shows how far behind the curve some nations really are. If nations like Nepal, Afganistan, Palestine or Israel ever want to develop into peaceful democratic nations, their populous needs to first abandon their hardcore religious beliefs, otherwise it is all a big waste of time...good luck.

I have to disagree with you to some extent, so I shall place this here for you to read along with adding another thing to this post:

Caramel Frappe:

Tanis:
Religious people doing stupid things that end up hurting/killing people?

Wow...that's SO new!

True that this involved religious beliefs hint why they burned the poor woman alive.. yet religion itself isn't responsible. Some people take beliefs way to far- including politicians. They don't have to be religious yet their beliefs in politics can drive them making very bad decisions (Hitler for say), or even scientists in their beliefs can cause them to create horrible things (video games and movies love to make scientists usually bad like in Resident Evil, ect.)

Still, it's the very hardcore religious people that usually tend to do acts like these. Sadly, my religion as a Christian is understandable to feel hatred towards since Christians tend to hate gays, judge people, and force their beliefs onto people. Yet they forget the very importance of a moral within the religion:

"Treat thy neighbor as you'd treat thyself." (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39)

Even though I am a religious, I myself am not a holy person- I got flaws. Just I try to improve and still struggle. Yet it really does indeed sadden me dearly to see a mother die in such a state including having her daughter watch. That's not only traumatizing but will inflict her deeply, maybe even physically. All we can do is educate people hoping they won't take their beliefs to such a state and accuse people as being witches, satan(s), whichever it may be.

Besides that, the part I disagree with you on the most is this you've stated:

the more educated a population becomes, the less religious they become.

Albert Einstein is considered one of the most brilliant minds around, plus we use most of his theories/factors as evidence in science dealing with light, physics, ect. yet he was Jewish. The problem isn't religion itself, but the people who take their beliefs and warp it into judgement upon others without thinking it through.

If I saw a girl wearing Satan on her arm as a tattoo, I wouldn't think she was a witch or some sort of Satanist. Instead it's just an artistic style going on and she chose that for a particular reason. Doesn't define her as something against my religion but rather it's her choice to stand out as something in this modern culture. That, and there are many personal reasons why a war or act of crime is started. In America, protests and acts of violence are happening because of the people wanting the higher ups or higher classes to stop getting special treatment from the Government, and want fair jobs.

NuclearShadow:

Liquidacid23:
meh shit happens ... it's a fucked up world whatta you gonna do

you can't stop people from doing horrible and stupid things... at least not short of committing some horrible acts yourself to force them

Your defeatist attitude is actually what makes problems like this continue when something goes wrong or a terrible deed is done weak minded people throw their hands up in air and declare nothing can be done.

This problem is shown to be fully treatable. Much of the world suffered through this ignorance at one time and while some remain all do not. Reason, science, and education vastly decreased the accusations of witchcraft that use leading to innocent men, women, and children to be slaughtered. This does not need to happen and it is preventable.

If those who brought these changes were to have listened to people like you we would still be witch hunting on a daily basis. You must never lift your head due to the shame upon it.

it was meant more generally that just witchcraft but ya things CAN change the thing is they NEVER do it fast and usually they don't do it nicely or willingly... there are always hold outs... which is why I said the world is a fucked up place.. even after all the "Reason, science, and education" available in the world things like this still happen even in more civilized places every now and again where you would think they shouldn't... there is no fixing some peoples stupid in a nice way nor is everyone willing to be educated... it's not "defeatist" to see the reality of the situation and know that no matter what you do someone is still gonna be a tard and do some stupid shit like this

you have absolutely no grip on reality if you think everyone can or is willing to be reached... you may be able to help some people but you can not help everyone especially the unwilling... some people, like those that burned this lady, don't need to be educated or reasoned with as it most likely wouldn't help... they need to be drug out back and shot

TheRookie8:

Liquidacid23:
meh shit happens ... it's a fucked up world whatta you gonna do

you can't stop people from doing horrible and stupid things... at least not short of committing some horrible acts yourself to force them

You can stop them. Some people don't want to. Others just don't know. But you can.

You can't choose how someone will act, but you can choose how to react.

I'm a little hazy about committing horrible acts to stop horrible acts...that statement seems too general, and a person can choose not to act in that manner.

by committing horrible acts to stop horrible acts i'm referring to what you have to do to stop those that refuse to be reasoned with... some times you just have to remove them permanently... lifetime in jail or kill them which are both horrible things to do to someone even if it's for a good reason... but hey as I said the world is not a fair or nice place...

Hammeroj:

debrox:
Ad hominem tu quoque does not equal a good argument. But that was not part of my argument. It was just a conversational way to say whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Note: I'm barely responding at this point.

First, what you call your argument could barely even be described as a sentence. Don't refer to it as some supreme put down or drop of knowledge. Second, I did address your argument. Third, you have no basis on which to invoke the Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. All you're doing, twice in a row, is throwing latin at me, presumably in hopes that I'll cower in awe of your rhetorical skills.

The straw man fallacy does not equal a good argument.

Hammeroj:

Terminate421:

Tanis:
Religious people doing stupid things that end up hurting/killing people?

Wow...that's SO new!

Please tell me you mean Extremists......

"Moderates" see human sacrifice as a good thing. They celebrate a man's conviction to follow the voice in his head to the point of gutting his own son. The main difference is how far you're willing to go in the name of your professed beliefs.

Moderates are better to be sure, but don't even imply that one is completely different from the other.

The point of that story was to differentiate the judeo-christian God from barbaric, pagan religions. Besides, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

debrox:

Hammeroj:

debrox:
Ad hominem tu quoque does not equal a good argument. But that was not part of my argument. It was just a conversational way to say whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Note: I'm barely responding at this point.

First, what you call your argument could barely even be described as a sentence. Don't refer to it as some supreme put down or drop of knowledge. Second, I did address your argument. Third, you have no basis on which to invoke the Ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. All you're doing, twice in a row, is throwing latin at me, presumably in hopes that I'll cower in awe of your rhetorical skills.

The straw man fallacy does not equal a good argument.

Are you trying to get a rise out of me? The least you could do is point to where and how I fall into the trap of logical fallacies.

Caramel Frappe:
Besides that, the part I disagree with you on the most is this you've stated:

the more educated a population becomes, the less religious they become.

Albert Einstein is considered one of the most brilliant minds around, plus we use most of his theories/factors as evidence in science dealing with light, physics, ect. yet he was Jewish. The problem isn't religion itself, but the people who take their beliefs and warp it into judgement upon others without thinking it through.

You'll be surprised to know that:
A) All the countries with the highest education systems in the entire world (Nordic countries, Germany, France, etc.) also are the least religious of the world;
B) Scientists in particular tend to be far less religious than the general population.

Einstein being Jewish proves nothing, just as Newton being Christian proves nothing. If you grow up in what basically amounted a completely religious society, there is simply no choice for you other than to be religious. That or face not-so-pleasant consequences. On the topic of Einstein in particular, he wasn't religious in the way most people are - he was a deist, whereas most of the general religious population are theist. The difference between the two is that theists assume a deity that intervenes in human affairs.

Furthermore, nobody said that religious people can't invent stuff. They can. But there's always one portion of their mind which, unlike whatever their area of expertise is, isn't open to logical reasoning or the scientific method. Assuming a deity without evidence, no matter what way you try to put it, is in direct contradiction of both.

Hammeroj:

debrox:
Correlation does not equal causation. Leave the use of statistical argument to the big boys who understand it.

'Course it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean nothing, either.

I find it ironic that you call yourself a big boy, when "correlation does not equal causation" is one of the most used terms on this forum, and that's basically the entirety of your post.

And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

Hammeroj:
You'll be surprised to know that:
A) All the countries with the highest education systems in the entire world (Nordic countries, Germany, France, etc.) also are the least religious of the world;
B) Scientists in particular tend to be far less religious than the general population.

Einstein being Jewish proves nothing, just as Newton being Christian proves nothing. If you grow up in what basically amounted a completely religious society, there is simply no choice for you other than to be religious. That or face not-so-pleasant consequences. On the topic of Einstein in particular, he wasn't religious in the way most people are - he was a deist, whereas most of the general religious population are theist. The difference between the two is that theists assume a deity that intervenes in human affairs.

Furthermore, nobody said that religious people can't invent stuff. They can. But there's always one portion of their mind which, unlike whatever their area of expertise is, isn't open to logical reasoning or the scientific method. Assuming a deity without evidence, no matter what way you try to put it, is in direct contradiction of both.

But.. what I don't get then is that you've stated religion overall is bad and hurting society (if not causing bloodshed and violence) yet you excuse Einstein and Newton of their religion due to playing a roll in history with their brilliance. So if that's the case, what is your argument then? Not trying to sound rude of course, but their religion does prove something- that you can believe in a spiritual path while being intelligent too.

Also, the reason why those countries you've mentioned have the less religious population is because they're the biggest (if not most known/popular) countries in the world. People from all over move into these countries with their beliefs whether it'd be politics, religion, scientific factors (weighing everything else) or not having a belief which is fine. All depends on the individual.. people change beliefs from time to time unless you're a solid believer which is a dedication.

What bothers me is that you declare religion to be illogical, nor open mindedness if not having anything to do with science. Basing that off religious people isn't a way to see things to my understanding. It's primarily again on the person themselves. One can shun others do to the person not sharing their views thus feel that they're against them.. but really it's just a difference in beliefs but not much else. You believing in the scientific method could be said as a religion but rather it's a path you've taken in life. That's not wrong at all, it's what you do that makes the difference of right and wrong. Most religious people also volunteer and help with charities along with going out to different countries to support those people who struggle even if they're not Christian/Catholic/whichever it may be.

Actions alone are what matters, defining a group to be the same is like assuming all Germans are Nazi just because Nazis originated in Germany. Even some actual Nazis did not hate Jews, but had to serve the military during World War II due to forced applications given out to families seeking young men to become soldiers. Anyhow point is this is your opinion and I respect that. I know what most think of religion to be a vile, misleading category to make a man or woman into an animal. Yet, that's not true.. it's just what one person does that tends to stand out over all the other people who have done no wrong or least nothing foul to that extent.

Deathmageddon:

Hammeroj:

Terminate421:

Please tell me you mean Extremists......

"Moderates" see human sacrifice as a good thing. They celebrate a man's conviction to follow the voice in his head to the point of gutting his own son. The main difference is how far you're willing to go in the name of your professed beliefs.

Moderates are better to be sure, but don't even imply that one is completely different from the other.

The point of that story was to differentiate the judeo-christian God from barbaric, pagan religions. Besides, Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Thou shalt not kill, until I tell you to slaughter thousands and thousands of people and take their virgins as slaves. Or was that part a metaphor? The point of the story was to show what kind of reverence God expects of you. The old testament is just as barbaric as any other religion ever was.

Mortai Gravesend:
And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

It doesn't imply causation simply by being there, but it does when you consider the implications (catch the drift?) of a better education. This includes a better understanding of religion's biggest enemies - logic and the scientific method. When there's literally no reason for you to believe something, it's only logical you're less likely to believe it with a better understanding of reality. But I may be wrong, in which case, present a better explanation, I'm all ears.

Mortai Gravesend:

Hammeroj:

debrox:
Correlation does not equal causation. Leave the use of statistical argument to the big boys who understand it.

'Course it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean nothing, either.

I find it ironic that you call yourself a big boy, when "correlation does not equal causation" is one of the most used terms on this forum, and that's basically the entirety of your post.

And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

I am assuming something that is a necessity for his thoughts to be coherent:

Hammeroj:

Moosejaw:

iseko:

I don't mind religion in general but it's things like these that sometimes make me hate it. People killing other people over pure fiction. And in such a horrible way. Bah! Makes me sick.

Don't get me wrong. Religion has it's good things too. Acts like these just sometimes make those good things hard to see.

People do stupid shit constantly, religion is merely a wayward justification. If religion weren't there, they'd find some other justification to be stupid assholes.

Would it be better if the woman was burned for monetary or political purposes (which I suspect are closer to the true reasons)? I somehow doubt she or her children would care.

Without religion, it would be one less crazy justification for killing people, and that's the whole point. Also, your assertion that without religion people would still kill each other just the same is downright false, as evidenced by the statistical fact that the least religious countries in, at least, western society, have the lowest criminal rates in the entire world.

The bolded part probably means that you either haven't been around religious people enough or are religious yourself and are rationalising your beliefs. Religions shape people's perception of reality, don't you dare tell anyone they're "merely" anything.

So his premise is lower amounts of religion correspond statistically (i.e. correlate with) lower amounts of violence. His second (implied) premise is that this correlation demonstrates causation, using the cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Therefore, he concludes, the religious violence absent in a less religious country is not replaced by other avenues of violence. His conclusion, which he expressly stated, makes no sense without the implied premise.

debrox:

Mortai Gravesend:

Hammeroj:

'Course it doesn't. Correlation doesn't mean nothing, either.

I find it ironic that you call yourself a big boy, when "correlation does not equal causation" is one of the most used terms on this forum, and that's basically the entirety of your post.

And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

I am not assuming anything. The original post stated it expressly in his argument:

Hammeroj:

Moosejaw:

People do stupid shit constantly, religion is merely a wayward justification. If religion weren't there, they'd find some other justification to be stupid assholes.

Would it be better if the woman was burned for monetary or political purposes (which I suspect are closer to the true reasons)? I somehow doubt she or her children would care.

Without religion, it would be one less crazy justification for killing people, and that's the whole point. Also, your assertion that without religion people would still kill each other just the same is downright false, as evidenced by the statistical fact that the least religious countries in, at least, western society, have the lowest criminal rates in the entire world.

The bolded part probably means that you either haven't been around religious people enough or are religious yourself and are rationalising your beliefs. Religions shape people's perception of reality, don't you dare tell anyone they're "merely" anything.

I was addressing the person I quoted. HE was assuming causation.

Hammeroj:

Mortai Gravesend:
And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

It doesn't imply causation simply by being there, but it does when you consider the implications (catch the drift?) of a better education. This includes a better understanding of religion's biggest enemies - logic and the scientific method. When there's literally no reason for you to believe something, it's only logical you're less likely to believe it with a better understanding of reality. But I may be wrong, in which case, present a better explanation, I'm all ears.

No, it doesn't when you consider the implications. For instance there's common cause. Better education can lead to both. Or maybe better education -> better quality of life -> less crime. Not hard if you can use a bit of logic.

Also those are not religion's biggest enemies. Cut the crappy rhetoric. It is not 'only logical', if you fail to identify the reasons someone believes it in the first place it's retarded to pretend you know what would change it.

Also don't try a stupid argument from ignorance. You've done nothing to show that it is the cause, you're giving pure speculation.

Mortai Gravesend:

debrox:

Mortai Gravesend:

And you were using it with the assumption it showed causation. So saying it doesn't mean nothing is quite irrelevant. Weak argument there.

I am not assuming anything. The original post stated it expressly in his argument:

Hammeroj:
Without religion, it would be one less crazy justification for killing people, and that's the whole point. Also, your assertion that without religion people would still kill each other just the same is downright false, as evidenced by the statistical fact that the least religious countries in, at least, western society, have the lowest criminal rates in the entire world.

The bolded part probably means that you either haven't been around religious people enough or are religious yourself and are rationalising your beliefs. Religions shape people's perception of reality, don't you dare tell anyone they're "merely" anything.

I was addressing the person I quoted. HE was assuming causation.

Yes, you're right.

Hammeroj:

uncanny474:

Tanis:
Religious people doing stupid things that end up hurting/killing people?

Wow...that's SO new!

Come off it. It's not the religions that make people do stupid things--religions are just an excuse for them to do something they would have done anyway.

If power invariably corrupts, then I think it says something about the species being given that power, even moreso than it does the nature of power itself. People have shown me time and time again that they will act horrible to each other at the slightest provocation. I can't believe y'all are surprised.

And there we go again. Religion is not "just an" anything. It significantly alters the very perception of reality of those believing it. That isn't something minor you just brush off the same way you would an out there opinion on a movie or something.

But if you really want to go down this road, and claim that religion is actually just a ruse on the part of all believers, explain something to me. Explain suicide bombing.

People are willing to die for their intolerance. It's a very, VERY stupid thing, but people are willing to die for just about anything.

Saucycarpdog:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/18/world/asia/nepal-witchcraft-burning/index.html

I hope those responsible are burned at the stake themselves. They killed the woman right in front of her daughter.

I sould point out that of the people arrested, there were two shamans. Somehow, this doesnt sit right with me, but I dont know why... well, okay, it doesnt sit even more right with me, considering that there was a woman burned at the stake... I mean for fuck sake...

Pebblig:

Regnes:
Well her children got one million rupees, do you know how many Hyrulean shields you could buy with that shit?

12,500 in Ocarina of Time, 5000 in Twilight Princess (:

Don't forget about when you show Zelda's letter to get the discount in OoT! Then you can get 16,666 shields!

Yeesh, why do I even remember that?...?

Caramel Frappe:
But.. what I don't get then is that you've stated religion overall is bad and hurting society (if not causing bloodshed and violence) yet you excuse Einstein and Newton of their religion due to playing a roll in history with their brilliance. So if that's the case, what is your argument then? Not trying to sound rude of course, but their religion does prove something- that you can believe in a spiritual path while being intelligent too.

Also, the reason why those countries you've mentioned have the less religious population is because they're the biggest (if not most known/popular) countries in the world. People from all over move into these countries with their beliefs whether it'd be politics, religion, scientific factors (weighing everything else) or not having a belief which is fine. All depends on the individual.. people change beliefs from time to time unless you're a solid believer which is a dedication.

What bothers me is that you declare religion to be illogical, nor open mindedness if not having anything to do with science. Basing that off religious people isn't a way to see things to my understanding. It's primarily again on the person themselves. One can shun others do to the person not sharing their views thus feel that they're against them.. but really it's just a difference in beliefs but not much else. You believing in the scientific method could be said as a religion but rather it's a path you've taken in life. That's not wrong at all, it's what you do that makes the difference of right and wrong. Most religious people also volunteer and help with charities along with going out to different countries to support those people who struggle even if they're not Christian/Catholic/whichever it may be.

Actions alone are what matters, defining a group to be the same is like assuming all Germans are Nazi just because Nazis originated in Germany. Even some actual Nazis did not hate Jews, but had to serve the military during World War II due to forced applications given out to families seeking young men to become soldiers. Anyhow point is this is your opinion and I respect that. I know what most think of religion to be a vile, misleading category to make a man or woman into an animal. Yet, that's not true.. it's just what one person does that tends to stand out over all the other people who have done no wrong or least nothing foul to that extent.

I excuse Einstein because he wasn't the overbearing type of religious that thinks God intervenes or even cares about what humans do with their lives. This is as innocuous as religious belief gets. Newton, on the other hand, did get hindered by his religious views. This smart guy talks about it, but in a nutshell, Newton only went as far as discovering the universal laws of gravity, but when he ran into the multiple-body problem, he threw his hands up and basically said "God is keeping the planets stable.".

Actually, none of the countries I mentioned are anywhere close to having the cultural and political impact a particularly religious country, namely the US, has. They are also not anywhere close in terms of size or population.

A couple of things wrong with this paragraph. First, the scientific method provides real, tangible benefits to the people of this planet. It is based on observations, explanations for those observation, and scientific models that allow for predictions. Scientific experiments can be tested. Religion incorporates no such thing, don't equate the two.

And you know that's not true... How? Are you saying your particular interpretation of whatever religion you ascribe yourself to is 'righter' than other people's?

uncanny474:
People are willing to die for their intolerance. It's a very, VERY stupid thing, but people are willing to die for just about anything.

Is that why the suicide bombing community is pretty much entirely religious? You sure a promise of afterlife with a bunch of virgins there has nothing to do with it?

Mortai Gravesend:
No, it doesn't when you consider the implications. For instance there's common cause. Better education can lead to both. Or maybe better education -> better quality of life -> less crime. Not hard if you can use a bit of logic.

Also those are not religion's biggest enemies. Cut the crappy rhetoric. It is not 'only logical', if you fail to identify the reasons someone believes it in the first place it's retarded to pretend you know what would change it.

Also don't try a stupid argument from ignorance. You've done nothing to show that it is the cause, you're giving pure speculation.

By no fault of yours, crime isn't what I was talking about in that specific quote. Got mixed up in a couple of conversations. Can't turn that correlation into a causation.

Aaand yes, yes they are. You do not get behind the fact that there is zero evidence for any religion out there. There is as much evidence of any god as there is for Cthulhu, Jedi or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Hammeroj:

Mortai Gravesend:
No, it doesn't when you consider the implications. For instance there's common cause. Better education can lead to both. Or maybe better education -> better quality of life -> less crime. Not hard if you can use a bit of logic.

Also those are not religion's biggest enemies. Cut the crappy rhetoric. It is not 'only logical', if you fail to identify the reasons someone believes it in the first place it's retarded to pretend you know what would change it.

Also don't try a stupid argument from ignorance. You've done nothing to show that it is the cause, you're giving pure speculation.

By no fault of yours, crime isn't what I was talking about in that specific quote. Got mixed up in a couple of conversations. Can't turn that correlation into a causation.

Aaand yes, yes they are. You do not get behind the fact that there is zero evidence for any religion out there.

Then what were you talking about??

Heh, no. Go take a basic course in logic and then come back and tell me that about logic. It does nothing of the sort. People always misuse the word 'logic', ignoring that it can support no actual positions in and of itself. It's a system and if you put garbage in you'll get garbage out without a complaint from it. Scientific method doesn't run people's lives so it doesn't work for that either.

And don't be a douche and try to tell me what I do or do not get. I know there's no evidence. That alone doesn't make you right though.

Mortai Gravesend:

Hammeroj:

Mortai Gravesend:
No, it doesn't when you consider the implications. For instance there's common cause. Better education can lead to both. Or maybe better education -> better quality of life -> less crime. Not hard if you can use a bit of logic.

Also those are not religion's biggest enemies. Cut the crappy rhetoric. It is not 'only logical', if you fail to identify the reasons someone believes it in the first place it's retarded to pretend you know what would change it.

Also don't try a stupid argument from ignorance. You've done nothing to show that it is the cause, you're giving pure speculation.

By no fault of yours, crime isn't what I was talking about in that specific quote. Got mixed up in a couple of conversations. Can't turn that correlation into a causation.

Aaand yes, yes they are. You do not get behind the fact that there is zero evidence for any religion out there.

Then what were you talking about??

Heh, no. Go take a basic course in logic and then come back and tell me that about logic. It does nothing of the sort. People always misuse the word 'logic', ignoring that it can support no actual positions in and of itself. It's a system and if you put garbage in you'll get garbage out without a complaint from it. Scientific method doesn't run people's lives so it doesn't work for that either.

And don't be a douche and try to tell me what I do or do not get. I know there's no evidence. That alone doesn't make you right though.

What it does is make religious beliefs baseless. True or false.

Edit: was talking about the religious belief itself, not the violence rates at that point. Although, again, my arrogance to infer causation there was brash at best.

so in the spirit of making the world a better and fairer one I say we go find the people who did this and .... Burn them at the stake !!!
I'll bring the makings for the smoores !!!

Hammeroj:

Mortai Gravesend:

Hammeroj:

By no fault of yours, crime isn't what I was talking about in that specific quote. Got mixed up in a couple of conversations. Can't turn that correlation into a causation.

Aaand yes, yes they are. You do not get behind the fact that there is zero evidence for any religion out there.

Then what were you talking about??

Heh, no. Go take a basic course in logic and then come back and tell me that about logic. It does nothing of the sort. People always misuse the word 'logic', ignoring that it can support no actual positions in and of itself. It's a system and if you put garbage in you'll get garbage out without a complaint from it. Scientific method doesn't run people's lives so it doesn't work for that either.

And don't be a douche and try to tell me what I do or do not get. I know there's no evidence. That alone doesn't make you right though.

What it does is make religious beliefs baseless. True or false.

Edit: was talking about the religious belief itself, not the violence rates at that point. Although, again, my arrogance to infer causation there was brash at best.

WHAT makes religious belief baseless? Logic? No. Scientific method? Well it certainly removes reasons people have believed in the past.

Surpheal:

Durgiun:

zumbledum:

Dont be ridiculous Americans would never burn anyone for being a witch. they do communists and black people!

And homosexuals, don't forget them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that already happen in America? You know, the whole Salem witch trails and The Crucible.

The people of the Salem Witch trials were imprisoned, tried, then hanged. Not attacked, beaten, then burned.

Both are silly and should never have happened, but the one that was more cruel is pretty obvious. There were also a few that were found innocent during the witch trials.

Nepal? Really? Glad I don't live anywhere near that hellhole. That is just messed up.

It's funny because I know people who actually identify as witches, I think they practice Wicca or something, and I have literally heard them say "Hah, stupid Christians, they tried to kill us all but they didn't we're going to get revenge because we're still around".

Then something like this happens and I wish people could just shut the fuck up, whether they be shamans, witches or the damn Pope. Stop inciting hatred, because it'll always backfire.

Lieju:

waj9876:

Hammeroj:
"Moderates" see human sacrifice as a good thing. They celebrate a man's conviction to follow the voice in his head to the point of gutting his own son. The main difference is how far you're willing to go in the name of your professed beliefs.

And those are the extremists. The ones who pull this shit. Trust me, us "Normal" religious types are just as disgusted by this as everyone else.

Terminate421:

Tanis:
Religious people doing stupid things that end up hurting/killing people?

Wow...that's SO new!

Please tell me you mean Extremists......

An extremist just means people who have more extreme beliefs than the majority, so it's completely subjective. Most people who in the 13th century Europe would have been considered 'normal' we would today label extremists.

It really just depends on what group of people you are looking at. Are you talking about all the religious people in the world? Or particular sect or religion?

And what you define to be 'extremism', anyway?

I should have meant Religious Extremitism.

I am Catholic, I am not afraid to admit it. But I do get tired of the idea that apparently "only religious people could do this" so I meant to say Extremists because thats when they let their religion control their common sense. I don't mind religious people, but its idiots who kill people or prevent life saving medicine from reaching people thats the problem and gives us a bad image.

Hammeroj:
I excuse Einstein because he wasn't the overbearing type of religious that thinks God intervenes or even cares about what humans do with their lives. This is as innocuous as religious belief gets. Newton, on the other hand, did get hindered by his religious views. This smart guy talks about it, but in a nutshell, Newton only went as far as discovering the universal laws of gravity, but when he ran into the multiple-body problem, he threw his hands up and basically said "God is keeping the planets stable.".

Actually, none of the countries I mentioned are anywhere close to having the cultural and political impact a particularly religious country, namely the US, has. They are also not anywhere close in terms of size or population.

A couple of things wrong with this paragraph. First, the scientific method provides real, tangible benefits to the people of this planet. It is based on observations, explanations for those observation, and scientific models that allow for predictions. Scientific experiments can be tested. Religion incorporates no such thing, don't equate the two.

And you know that's not true... How? Are you saying your particular interpretation of whatever religion you ascribe yourself to is 'righter' than other people's?

.. Huh? I never said I nor my religion was better then anyone's within my posts. Now we're getting a bit off topic with this "superior" subject :{

There's an issue with this debate- your belief in scientific method. It is real and does help people out which I am thankful towards plus you have every right to believe in science altogether. However, you cast aside religion if not shunning it due to not being able to be tested on. I can't debate about religion and science towards someone who heavily believes in scientific method for it's a belief.

It'd be like if you were trying to convince me that science isn't bad despite that people have invented weapons (guns, biological weapons, other deadly stuff) thanks to science. See, everything has pros and cons about the matter. Pros on religion is that it can help people become better along with having something to live for. Cons can be that it can also drive people to do ridiculous things like this incident. Same thing goes to science.

So your belief in science is perfectly fine but to say religion is just flat out craziness or.. you know bashing it (not saying but sounds like it) that's just wrong but I have no right to judge on your part. All I am claiming is that there is two sides of the coin and you're only focusing on the bad side.. there's good things in Religion even if you don't see eye to eye with it.

Its rather ironic that the same argument that people are throwing against each other is quite probably the same argument and logic that actually led to a Mother being burned by her own Family, or rather part of her Family.

How exactly is it a equal evil to laugh at something horrible, to make a joke to deflect and defuse, as the actual Deed itself? That is illogical on so many levels i wont even bother arguing every single case where it would apply. And if i was very honest at this Point, if we as People would take every case of this, or something similar to it, as serious as you do verbally in here, then you might as well jump off a Bridge right now because at the end of the Day, we as a Species are stupid and very very nasty to each other. Shit like this happens on a daily basis, something we define as evil probably happens this very Minute you are reading this. Does that make the "Evil" any less worse? Nope, it doesnt. But to gather in outrage every time, and then point fingers at People who do not make that outrage heard in the same Way? Get off that high Horse.

Caramel Frappe:

True that this involved religious beliefs hint why they burned the poor woman alive.. yet religion itself isn't responsible. Some people take beliefs way to far- including politicians. They don't have to be religious yet their beliefs in politics can drive them making very bad decisions (Hitler for say), or even scientists in their beliefs can cause them to create horrible things (video games and movies love to make scientists usually bad like in Resident Evil, ect.)

Still, it's the very hardcore religious people that usually tend to do acts like these. Sadly, my religion as a Christian is understandable to feel hatred towards since Christians tend to hate gays, judge people, and force their beliefs onto people. Yet they forget the very importance of a moral within the religion:

"Treat thy neighbor as you'd treat thyself." (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39)

Even though I am a religious, I myself am not a holy person- I got flaws. Just I try to improve and still struggle. Yet it really does indeed sadden me dearly to see a mother die in such a state including having her daughter watch. That's not only traumatizing but will inflict her deeply, maybe even physically. All we can do is educate people hoping they won't take their beliefs to such a state and accuse people as being witches, satan(s), whichever it may be.

What does a religion become if the vast majority of the faithful are not willing to judge and act according to their religious beliefs? A spirituality, a set of traditions? Seems like a religion stripped of all power and influence to me, it ceases to be a genuine religion IMO. Passively/selectively believing in religious codes is a phenomena largely unique to the West, due to the rise of scientific thinking, personal freedoms and a common secular culture.

The more pervasive a religion is within a population (and the more deficient a population is of proper education), the more likely that individuals will judge and act based on these religious beliefs (including the use of force). In cases of extreme pervasiveness, the state and judiciary are willing to use force in the name of the dominant religion ex: Saudi Arabia, Israel. I agree that ideology can take the place of religion in this sense. The state "religion" of the USSR was Marxist-Leninism for example. Religious and ideologoical dogma take over where education fails; accepting what you are told to believe versus thinking independently and logically.

Blame lies soley with the individuals who carry out such acts of violence/oppression, but it is clear that their dogmatic beliefs are the root cause of the problem. If these people had not been "brainswashed" by the local shamans, do you really think they would have made the decision to burn another human being alive?

Albert Einstein is considered one of the most brilliant minds around, plus we use most of his theories/factors as evidence in science dealing with light, physics, ect. yet he was Jewish. The problem isn't religion itself, but the people who take their beliefs and warp it into judgement upon others without thinking it through.

If I saw a girl wearing Satan on her arm as a tattoo, I wouldn't think she was a witch or some sort of Satanist. Instead it's just an artistic style going on and she chose that for a particular reason. Doesn't define her as something against my religion but rather it's her choice to stand out as something in this modern culture. That, and there are many personal reasons why a war or act of crime is started. In America, protests and acts of violence are happening because of the people wanting the higher ups or higher classes to stop getting special treatment from the Government, and want fair jobs.

I wasn't saying that religous people are not intelligent. I was saying that secular education and the resulting democratic culture run contrary to religion. Science contradicts long held religious beliefs using undeniable facts. The Rule of Law provides a fair and egalitatian legal system, the same cannot be said of Sharia courts in the Middle East or the now abolished Christian legal systems. Secular humanism has unified large populations crossing borders and oceans, religious morality has a long history of creating violent divisions. If secular education was introduced as the global norm, major religions would decline to the simple spiritualities seen in much of the western world (this is exactly what the Islamist terrorists are fighting against).

If that girl lived in Saudi Arabia she would be imprisoned or murdered for violating the state's religious dogma, tolerance does not seem to exist in most religious societies.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked