Gwazi Magnum

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Brovo said "If any Religious person is reading this, please answer this question: If you found out your God didn't exist, would you now go out raping and murdering people? If not then you just proved that you don't need Religion to be a moral human being." Double logical fallacy right there. Using an extreme example then presuming your opponent's answer, answering in advance, and proclaiming victory before any discussion could even occur. This is as bad as asking an atheist if they would go raping people if the law suddenly allowed it tomorrow, then using evidence of that to prove that laws against rape are unnecessary and declaring victory. It's a broken question in two painfully obvious aspects, Gwazi.

Noted, I'll admit to this being a bad habit of mine that needs to be broken.

Imperfectionist said :( I really, completely and utterly those emotes ( this one and this one ). Just seeing them both in your post, Brovo (especially this one at the end), makes me think "Yeah, Brovo's point is sound, that does seem like a logically flawed question... But does he(?) have to be such an asshole about it?" I don't think that post is going to help anything, is what I'm saying, but that's a whole different diatribe about the arguments I've seen on the Guild...

EDIT: The answer is "no", he doesn't. He chooses to, and he could choose to be a helpful part of the discussion instead. Hostility breeds hostility.

You don't need to worry on my account. :P
I'm more than used to Brovo acting that way, and honestly I prefer it that way. It gives me a closer insight to his actual opinion and thoughts than I would get otherwise. I say closer since after having read those PM's you and Brovo exchanged it became apparent Brovo was not being 100% honest/straightforward with me.

Besides, I'm big on the idea of people need to develop thicker skin and learn to handle criticism and disagreement's better rather than take offense. It allows for not only debates like this to become more common, but it also allows though who simply aren't as good with words to state their point without being dismissed as assholes. Lastly it also simply teaches people to be tougher in general and helps avoid a culture where we simply censor things or shelter people, resulting in undiscussed topics and more people who simply cannot handle honesty.

Imperfectionist said I might not have understood you or your arguments correctly (in fact, I'm quite sure I didn't), but that is the impression they leave on me

Note: This is also encompassing the stuff stated over the posted PM's.

There was a decent enough stated, with both of you that was both right and wrong.

I think you hit a nail on the head I had in fact missed myself, the whole being bitter about how I used to act religiously and am now in a sense expressing it out. This is something I did stop to reflect on and it rung true when I did think about it. However, I don't necessarily see it as a problem. Most people who passionately argue or disagree with something due so for a reason, a reason that has either effected them personally or was an injustice they saw and observed.

To clarify a miss-statement, I do not see or treat all Religious people the same like Brovo has claimed. I've told him several times that it is the structure/system of Religion and how it effects people I have issues with. Not the individuals within in. I know many good and amazing people who are religious, but none of them by any means need their Religion to be good people.

Also there was a misunderstanding on my childhood in that it was a generally unpleasant one. Now I can't blame this conclusion since the only reference I made to my family in this thread was a negative moment, but my childhood was not a terrible one (granted not the best either), but none of it's issues were caused by Religion. Which I will explain in a bit.

Now my childhood was happy, but not perfect to clarify. I grew up with Autism so bullying in school was common, and for many hours after school I was in therapy. Therapy that often amounted to the therapists getting mad at me, then me coming on to argue with my Mom basically every day while my Dad was almost always at work. As a result, I have not grown close to my family, I grew very separate from them and learned to gain happiness and reliance on friends instead. So whenever someone claims "I love my family! Me and my parents are really close!" you'll probably get a very alien look from me. However, none of this was the result of Religion. My parents were religious, but casual Christians.

My whole deal and exploration with Religion started when I was 14, when my Grandparent (The one mentioned earlier who tried to disown his granddaughter) died, who was a very strong Catholic. Now I got along with him fine to clarify, I still miss him to this day. However, his death got me thinking. The most religious person I know was dead, and this was also the first time I lost a family member. It got me seriously reflecting on the afterlife an what's awaiting me. So I made the choice on my own to study my own Religion, because my Mom's answers of "Just Ignore the Bible and just listen to the Ten Commandments" wasn't cutting it for me. The Bible was meant to be Christianity, how could I possibly be a Christian by ignoring it?

So I jumped right into it, and this lasted for 2-3 years. It mainly consisted of planting myself in an online Christian community to learn more about Christianity, and although I was raised a casual christian I was still raised Christian and that God was fact. So I was quickly swepped away and fell for a number of things I'm ashamed of. Mainly the utter disregard I gave to science, and how I treated the LGBT community during that time. Now, if it was just this group I could of easily left and simply dismiss it as a bad bunch. But it was something I was noticing out of almost every religious person (except for one Pagan friend I made) I ran into.

During these 2-3 years I was also exposed to the arguments of a number of atheists, and eventually they got through to me and I started to call myself an Agnostic. Then during this time I got learning more about science, and the other side of Religion. The receiving side, people who had to deal with rough religious upbringings, were discriminated against for not being Religious etc.

Overtime as my knowledge on Religion and Science grew I started identifying as an atheist instead and eventually after having seen enough of the negative's of Religion I looked back at my own family. My finding's were that there was not really much influence religion did hold in their lives, but what influence it was wasn't good. It was purely blind faith without proof, and it wasn't actually contributing or adding anything of value.

So I do agree that not all religious people are bad, not everyone who is religious will be crazy hateful extremists. But it is a system where when I went into it did not show by benefit, only methods to cut off one's standard of proof, and in more extreme families destroyed families, relationships, and was making big moves against scientific advancement and the LGBT community. So I have not found anything good or positive in the system of Religion, but that doesn't mean I hate everyone who is religious.

->I will also note though, I have a huge desire for knowing the truth even if it's hurts. I believe truth and honesty always is preferable to lies and dishonesty, no matter the circumstance. And when I look at Religion through a scientific stance it also irks me to see so many people except something that uses so many logical fallacies to support itself because there is no actual proof or evidence to support it. This does play a decent role in my position, but if not for the other reasons listed above I'd probably be fine with Religion as long as it wasn't getting the way of how our next generation get taught in school.

----More aimed at Brovo, but it was stated to you so you might as well read as well----

I noticed a repeated criticism that I am simply unwilling to learn. I've already explained this though, I am open to learn and being proven wrong. But there has not been anything shown to convince me that Religion can be a force for good. At least not in a way that isn't easily replicated by another method. You've seen constant proof of me absorbing new info on this Guild and change a stance as a result. Hell my transition from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice was largely due to the debate me and Jorick had on the topic.

But in regards to Religion I just haven't seen compelling reason or proof to change my stance, in the same sense you are not changing your stance because you have not received the same from me. That is not unwillingness to learn, that is skepticism and having certain standards before changing your stance on a topic.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Imperfectionist said You do not need to see "Religion", the monolith, as an inherently negative force, as you seem to. You, as a rational person can look at the words of Muhammad, who said to give to the poor, and Buddha, who preached kindness to all, and Jesus, who said to treat your enemy as your friend, and say "Though I do not believe in your divinity, I highly admire these just sentiments." That doesn't make you a bad atheist, and it definitely doesn't make you a bad person.

I'm not arguing that it is an inherently negative force, it is a tool that can be used for good or evil.
It's the idea the idea that you need Religion for things such as learning, spirituality or morals I am arguing. There are other ways of obtaining it, to claim you do need Religion for them would be to suggest that atheism is an inherently negative force because it cuts people off from learning, spirituality or morals.

Imperfectionist said You can, through rational thought, discern the just from the unjust, and attempt to explain your conclusions to others, without making them defensive or insulting their beliefs.

Which I have. The issue though is that Religion is often seen as a personal/sensitive topic, one that people are strongly encourage to avoid talking or debating about. It's a thing people choose to keep very close to them and allow themselves to get easily offended when questioned. So it is pretty difficult if not impossible to expect me to be able to explain my conclusion without seeming insulting to people's beliefs, if what I am arguing does not agree with said beliefs.

Imperfectionist said Just because a moral code has its base in a tradition of faith, that does not mean it is inherently bad. That's what I think you aren't getting. :(

It's not.

I think it's a poor way to decide on something, and if you expect to hold up to logic and reason needs to be re-evaluated by another means. But simply being born out of faith does not make the proposed idea inherently bad or evil. But that wasn't even what I was getting at earlier.

What I was getting as is all of the good morals we do have did originally start from things other than Religion. Religion may of done a good thing in repeating them, but it did not start/create them. That is not an attack, that is not claiming anything spawned from Religion is inherently bad. It is simply stating and giving enough credit to the human species that we are able to develop our own basic morals without a Religion making them for us. Brovo basically stated this too, so I'm surprised he's now turning around and calling this an Inquisitor style attack on Religion.

Imperfectionist said EDIT: Just to say this, the grandfather that I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the one with the Doctorate of Theology who assists people in their lives through secular means... He does nothing question. There are thousands of religious scholars throughout history and today who do nothing but question, and have stronger faith because of it.

I was aware of this, any Christian I have ever talked to who wasn't So Boerd admits that everyone must ask questions constantly and that it's part of growing. But by extension, if God is to exist everything is God's work and plan. So to question any of it is questioning God's work. It's doesn't have to mean disbelief in a god, it doesn't have to mean being unfaithful, but it is still questioning the work of God which is what I was trying to get at. In the same sense you question your parents when you ask them something like "Why do you put the cookies so high up?". You are not disrespecting or being un-loyal to your parents, but you are questioning them.

The issue though is in Religious communities there are certain questions that is frowned upon much of the time, you may get a lot of religious scholars willing to ask those questions anyways such as "Is there no God?", "Is being Gay really wrong?". But you will get many people who for asking such questions may be banished from their church, kicked out by their overly religious parents etc. And as much questioning as may be allowed depending on the branch or individual, if certain questions get asked, or certain conclusions are made they do not adapt but divide. And the damage that can be caused from society constantly dividing itself up over certain disagreements, some who question, others who treat it as hard-coded can be ginormous.

Imperfectionist said EDIT 3: Last one, a question: what is your goal, Gwazi? What do you truly want to change by arguing this?

This is what often throws people off when they debate with me, since most people go into a debate hoping to persuade everyone of their point and then leave.

I'm not like that, I go into a debate to learn the different sides/viewpoints of a topic and learn from it. That being said, I am not so gullible or easily swayed to simply accept and believe anything someone tells me when they disagree. I look at their argument, I evaluate it, I look for it's pro's and con's, I weigh it out and then decide if the argument stands and holds up to it's criticism. If it does, I'll reflect on it some more and then adapt it into further stances and opinions.

If I hadn't done this I'd still be a Christian Feminist, Homophobic, Pro-Life, Anti-Weed & Vaccine hater. When instead I'm a Atheist Humanist, Straight Ally, Pro-Choice, Pro-Legalization (But still don't smoke for preference of remaining sober), Vaccine supporter.

So in other words, I'm not truly trying to change anything specifically. I'm trying to get minds working, idea's following and conclusions being made that hopefully benefit all parties involved. But I still do so under the arguments of my certain standpoint or viewpoint, there's not much learning going on if I'm simply being told stuff and it's not being compared to my own viewpoints. There's barely any growth if what I'm being told never has the chance to face off against it, nor is there any growth if I keep my current standpoint absent and unquestioned/challenged.

It just so happens, Religion has been the only topic I've found where the vast majority of argument's I've seen/faced have not gone beyond "Do not question God", "Read the Bible", "Just have faith" or "You're Immoral". The first simply being not questioning something, which is not the way to learn. The second failing to prove why the Bible itself is something to be treated as a valid source, the third meaning faith as in without proof or evidence. And I'm not going to accept an argument or claim without proof or evidence to support it, and the latter simply being an insult at the individual and contributing nothing to the debate at hand.

Brovo said Gwazi's goal is the same as that of any inquisitor: To prove his own belief by somehow disproving someone else's belief. It's one thing to occasionally banter about philosophy. It's another to try so hard to validate your own beliefs that you open with one of the most frustrating and classic double logical fallacies of all time: A loaded question that also presume's the opponent's answer.I said it once Gwazi. Gonna say it again. Stop being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't help your case. At all.

Brovo, you of all people should know better than to confuse questioning/debating Religion as an attempt to prove one's own belief.

And I don't even see what the double edged question here was.

Here I mentioned Atheism 2, which as described at the man presenting as atheism but using of the perks/benefits of Religion, and then asked for people's thoughts.
I then did proceed with my own opinion, but it was not part of the question being asked.

Imperfectionist said I don't think he's being dishonest at all, and that's what I want to get at. I believe there is some entirely legitimate reason for him to fervently argue like this, and I don't know what it is. I feel like, if I don't understand him as a person, I cannot understand the context of his arguments... Thus, the question.I would greatly appreciate a thesis statement, if you will, that puts things into your perspective, Gwazi. And then, I will see what I think, and respond in kind.

I've already explained why I argue points and get into debates.

But to tackle why I argue this specific topic in the way I do, well like I also said above I still enter it under a certain point/viewpoint. And in the case of Religion my finding's have led to in a nutshell be largely similar to how Richard Dawkins see's it. It is something that primarily thrives on obedience to parent's and teaching people to not question the existence of God. It is also something that countless people can testify to being the kind of thing that destroy's families and relationships when religion and belief's begin to differ. This is a complex topic however, and it is impossible for me to describe it in something as short as a thesis without it being misunderstood.

But to keep it as short as possible from here on, although Religion is something that can inspire good and help people in their lives with a sense of purpose, meaning and spirituality. It also comes with a number of flaws. First that it start's with a claim "God exists, this is what he says", treat's it as fact and then sets out to prove it. Rather than going "This is the evidence, what can we make out of this?". Secondly when evidence is brought up it is constantly dismissed with claims such as "It's Gods Plan" or "It's a test" (Also, children are constantly told they suffer forever for not believing or worshiping, I think we can all agree that this isn't moral). Thirdly Religion is largely built in a way that the benefit's is provided requires the Religion, so if the former two points make you question enough either stop believing or be cast out of your church it can cause you to lose it all. Fourth, it does this when as I detailed in length in the OP Religion is not by any sense the only means of getting such things, where instead of trying to make source of say happiness or spirituality in the individual it becomes dependent on their beliefs. And on top it will constantly make the claim that Religion is the only way, which is an outright lie. 5. It is not all good and happy teachings, it also support's stuff like homophobia, banning certain foods, stoning of certain people, putting women 'in their place' etc. I once had a grandparent try to disown a grandchild because she was not conceived in marriage, basically punishing her for something that was by no means her fault.

I could try to go a bit more, but you wanted a Thesis, and that's about as close as I can try to put it without it being twisted by somebody, that with the clarification/reminder of that I agree there is some good from Religion. But it is not all good, there is a lot of bad, bad which in my mind cannot be ignored. Especially when the good can be gained from other sources, without the bad slipping in, which in a sense is what the guy stating Atheism 2 was trying to say. But he made the mistake of acting like getting these things was borrowing from Religion, and not say simply from another source as if only Religion truly could provide it, but Atheism 2 cheated a bit in taking some of it.

So Boerd said You keep claiming this (That the law of Moses is still in effect) despite being proven wrong over and over and over again. Read Acts chapter 15 and stop parroting this nonsemse.

And whenever I did claim this with you I also showed you where I was referring to, and showed why what you reference doesn't work. This is a finished argument that your source didn't hold up in. You're free to keep disagreeing however, that's your choice.

Dragon Age RPG, anyone?

I could sign up for that.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Imperfectionist said The question is biased to begin with, because it says nothing of the history of "you".

Here's a better one: If, in your life, there were no authority figures or peers of any sort who exposed you to the idea that certain actions harm others and that those actions are therefore bad, would you, as a rational adult, be able to assign that negative quality to those actions on your own?

I understand and agree with what you're saying here, but it's not what that question was trying to address.
It's not trying to argue that "You don't need to be taught things like murder is wrong by something", humans are born as empty slates. Everything they do and think has to be taught or at least influenced by something.

It was trying to argue that Religion does not need to be what teaches this lesson.
For example let's look at your average religious person, believes in God, goes to church, spreads the word of God and the Bible etc. If suddenly one day this person was given undeniable proof that God doesn't exist and their religion is false, and this proof and evidence is accepted by the individual would they now abandon all their morals? Without God would they then murder, rape etc? If no, then there is something telling/teaching them not to that is not Religion. Therefore, although some morals like murder and rape is wrong may need to be taught, it is not Religion that is needed for it.

Imperfectionist said (do you still prefer people to call you Gwazi?).

I'm fine with either.
Though I actually did ask to have my name changed back to Gwazi anyways because everyone still calls me that anyways.
But some Mod/Admin closed it without even giving a reply... So I doubt that name change will happen. :(

Imperfectionist said There are large numbers of people who do find their spiritual experiences through the structure of an organized religion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And I'm not trying to argue that, I'm arguing the belief that you do need Religion in order to be Spiritual or have an Spiritual experience. Neil deGrasse Tyson actually describes what he would consider to of the same spiritual feeling religious people feel, except his was from the wonders of science.

Imperfectionist said What's needed is a universal, secular moral code, one that builds from, but is not bound to the traditions of the various world faiths.

I agree that we need a universal, secular moral code. But not one that is necessarily built from faith.
All of the morals from Religion that we today see as moral are did not originally come from Religion, they were already examined, debated and evaluated by humans before then to be accepted as human morals. But where morals that where later taken in and adapted by Religion to gain more followers. So if we created a universal moral code without faith we'd still get all the same moralities from Religion that are in fact moral. But allowing faith to slip in and take a hold of influence just opens the door for others to also get in that's not as moral, such as say homosexuality is wrong. That despite being commonly agreed to be a very immoral practice and way of thinking is a mindset commonly accepted by Christian society.

So Boerd said It isn't my job to guess the mind of God.

If you ever wish to ask any question then yes it is. God is meant to control, predict and rule everything. To ever ask anything is to guess God because you are then questioning something he willed and allowed.
Questioning things is also the mandatory thing required for learning and science, so without questioning anything you are not learning anything.

-----Continued PM debate with mdk-----

So originally when this thread as closed I had still wanted to respond to some of mdk's arguments, so I PM'd my response to him and he in turn PM'd another reply (one that I could not get to until now because of other obligations). But now with the thread re-open I'll just reply to them here, and also make sure to quote my original replies to him so people are not lost as to what mdk is replying to.

Magic Magnum said You'll get both Religious and non-Religious people who want to help people and those who would rather have no part in it, it's just that one side has a title/group to do the act's under while the other doesn't.

mdk said Well it's not *just* that, but yes, that's probably a part of the PR side. At some point in his life, every single mormon man (because they're weird about gender) goes on a mission to underprivileged areas and does humanitarian work, because . Most christians 'tithe' (donate) a minimum of 10% of their personal income, because that's part of the teaching. Muslims are the same way -- Hezbollah, the extremist suicide-bomber factory, also builds hospitals and schools and orphanages, because the Quran says as much. There is an directive to be charitable, in every major religion, and atheism has nothing comparable to that. Can't, because as you say, atheism is the opposite of 'directives.' Now certainly there are charitable, decent people (millions of them) who don't go to church, and don't need to be told to do good things. You may remember that Jesus quote, On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

That's not so much chosen, individual or willing morality though but forced/required morality. If an atheist is out donating to the poor it is never for the sake of any God, but most of the time it can be purely for kindness of their heart (Mostly because there is still the chance of doing it for attention, impressing something they're attracted to etc.) But when it's something like a church ran charity or event, how many of them are doing it because they honestly care, how many are doing it because they feel they must due to god or what a church higher up says?

Now, this is not to say Religious people are not good people. I'm not implying that at all, but these kinds of things due help lead to the misconception that religious people are more moral/nicer people. Partly that some simply do them out of obedience to a church or God and this is mis-seen as a good act, other times kindness from Religion merely seems more common because most of the time a religious person does it they praise their God and/or church in the process, drawing attention to it. But if an atheist does it, there is no God or Church being praised, so no attention is going anywhere. It's simply easier to give attention to people who are spouting their reason about, than those who are simply helping for the sake of it and not due to anything greater. And for the very reason that there are many religious people are moral people, no one is going to assume that a person is atheist simply because they are not spouting a God or under the name of a Church when they help people.

Magic Magnum said Now, that study aside though I know what you're trying to get at. Science can be used for evil

mdk said What I'm getting at is, 'science' is not anything special. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. We can play the No True Scotsman game all day, if we must, it won't change the real situation.

Science is the best method we have though to learning things, discovering the truth, understanding our universe and correcting flaws and holes in our thinking.

Magic Magnum said Religion either will not question it because that is questioning God, or simply divide into another branch of _______ Religion.

mdk said That's just not true. We ask questions all the time, hell, half of the story of Jesus is about fighting the church. You can probably give me plenty of examples of religious people who don't question their own conclusions, and I could probably give you just as many atheists who are full of themselves.

Granted, but this usually leads to simply dividing into more Religious branches, not a Religious re-write (Especially when considering despite popular claim the Bible never actually dismissed the OT).
And this also leads to the glaring hole/contradictions when say God claims to be all powerful, all knowing and his rules shall always be obeyed, but then only a few thousand years later these must be re-written.

Opinions on faking sickness to skip school, work etc.

Thar has the logical fallacy though of going "We shouldn't focus on/talk about this, because this other thing is worse". Those South Korea standards listed are terrible and they should seriously be fixed for the good of both the teacher and the students. But South Korea simply being worse doesn't suddenly mean places we live have it 100% figured out either. We can have flaws and issues but still be doing better than other places.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Thoughts?

------All personal thoughts below-------

Personally, I think he has good intentions but he's too willing to claim religion is what provides good things, or to believe that atheists are automatically absent of anything spiritual or unknowing.

For a few examples:

1. Religion and Practices

Granted, the majority of cultural practices have roots in Religion. But what exactly do they give/provide? A sense of belonging and community, which is something you could get anywhere people gather for a common interest such as say Conventions.

If you like something like Choir? Then go out and sing with a singing club, or sing for Christmas. Christmas never was a Christian holiday anyways to begin with.

2. Religion and Education through Repetition

He's right in that Repetition does help Education, there is no arguing that. However, Religion rather than get this right abuses it. It does not simply repeat a lesson to help you remember, it repeats it to the point you must address as outright fact. And during this it never allows questioning, this effectively turns off one brain. The day you are taught to stop asking questions is they day you basically have stopped learning to think, but simply to obey.

There are better ways to repeat it, asking questions to the class and see if they remember the answer, in-class study sessions in a sense. You could relate similar topics where the previous info pops up again, it relates so you're more likely to recall and remember it. You do not need to simply repeat the same fact over and over again like Religion does in order to teach effectively.

P.S Exceptional cases like Autism Therapy not withstanding, but that mostly falls under practice. Repeat the action (or lack of action ex: stimming) enough times. If anyone ever tried therapy by just preaching the same sentence to a child multiple times they'd get no where. Plus therapy comes with physical rewards as reinforcement, religion has none of that.

3. Religion and Spirituality/Something bigger than us

Ok, during my time as a Christian (16-17 years) I never once had a spiritual moment. Nothing that ever reached out to me and made me go "Wow, this is amazing". Blind obedience? Yes, because I was raised to treat it as fact, but nothing that astonished me or influenced my life in a positive way.

But I get those kinds of "Wow" moments constantly when I do something such as watch Carl Sagan's or Neil Tysons Cosmos series. In fact that show is undoubtedly the most spiritual thing I've had in my life.

And anyone whose seen that show knows fully well what I mean, especially when it comes to something bigger than yourself. Living in a world where our own Galaxy alone has more suns than people? Each Galaxy supporting their own planets. And then the Universe as we know it contains more Galaxies than people even? That REALLY get's in perspective how small we are.

But at the same time, when we go back and look at evolution and how we evolved we also realize how special, unique and skilled we are. And our great potential for good or evil. We're not simply taught something like "we're sin and nothing compared to this divine being" removing any self-confidence a person has.

We get the sense of something far bigger than ourselves, but we do so still feeling well and happy with ourselves, rather than depressed and hateful of ourselves.

4. Religion allows you to go "I don't know"

*Facepalm*

Ok... That is what exactly is done by Religion. It claims to know everything, repeats it as fact and hates any questioning. Science is very humble in admitting we don't know things, and seeks to do studies and research to find the answer rather than sit back pretending to know all the answers.

Now, due to the method of science we sure have learned a lot. But there is infinitely more than we don't know. But just because we don't know something doesn't mean we automatically fill in the blank with God, it mean's we admit to not knowing it and then set out to find the answer.

5. Categorize Art

The art wanders away from Religion a bit. But the general idea still seems to be that categorizing art into sections or themes gives us more meaning. I disagree, I think it becomes more effective in persuading of certain idea's. But it does not allow us to look at it and think, to truly explore, ask questions and reflect if we are to already know the answer. And as a result spark engagement and discussion.

I mean for a very recent example in Media let's look at the movie Frozen. Some people see it as a movie about being yourself, others see it as coming out of the closest (LGBT specific or otherwise), some see it as woman empowerment. And a lot of intelligent and thought provoking discussion has come out of that. Where if the say the movie simply went "Oh no, the message we meant was ______" then all that discussion would just die.

6. Travel & Pilgrimages

This I think just really depends on the individuals kind of travel. But having barely traveled myself my input here is limited. But basically you got those who book a hotel, relax for a week and go home. Those who look at some landmarks, get some expensive souviners and go home.

But then you got those who fully embrace themselves, take in all the culture, do as the Romans do, takes long walks along preserved areas of nature, absorb the design, artwork and music of the country in question. I think this is the kind of travel he refers too, but this is not religion specific.

It's just simply something more outgoing and active people tend to do, cause others are just more comfortable in luxury, simply seeing a few attractions or just not doing much. Now, I think you're missing out on a lot of your vacation if you do that, but this is not a case of needing Religion or religious practices to enhance your trip. It's simply having the energy and initiative to go "I want to go see ______ and do _______ today!" and doing it.

7. Sermons VS Lecture's

The idea being more talks should be given on how to live your life than giving information. The issue is that everyone has different idea's on how to live, how to do things. If you simply have more Sermons you'll get even more pointless arguments over differences rather than constructive debates. Also, if you're simply told how to live rather than being taught information then you're going to learn not to think as much. You'll fine one charismatic and charming person, they'll say some words on how to live. You get washed up and invested into it, and now are just listening to them with little question. But if you were given the information, we can reason it out for yourself, think about it. This expands your mind, opens you to multiple paths, allows you absorb even more info, and perhaps even find a flaw/hole in what you're being taught and actually improve it in the long run.

8. Learning Morality

Now to clarify he was not saying "You need Religion to be moral".

What he was saying was that if you go a school and ask someone how to live or be moral they really don't have an answer for you. School's are not equipped for those things, but Religion is. One of it's main purposes is to teach morality to people.

Now that clarification is out of the way, it still goes back to the main flaw of you needed Religion to be moral. If you needed to believe in a God and be scared of hell to decide that raping, theft and murder are not good things to do... Then you're morality is terrifying. I would not want to be near anyone whose only reason for not murdering or raping someone is their Religion. Granted, schools should have some focus on teaching children in means other than academic. If school is honestly meant to prepare them for life, it should prepare them in all aspects, not just morality. But this change in the school system is not by any means 'borrowing from religion'.

Let's be honest, most atheists (or even religious people who don't believe in _______ god) posses basic human morality. The other religions having it prove that _______ God is not needed to be moral. The atheists prove that Religion is not needed to be moral.

Opinions on faking sickness to skip school, work etc.

So Boerd said
Outside of communism, most mental illness cannot be spread which is why we treat physical illness more severely, but other than that I think we should get guidelines from professionals on exactly when to take mental health days.

True in regards to being contagious.
But days off can still be granted for things such as injuries or broken limbs, but mental harms are usually ignored unless if it's the death of a loved one.

Opinions on faking sickness to skip school, work etc.

HeySeuss said Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis? Food service has a way higher standard for callouts than almost any other industry I can think of, at least when you're talking decent places with any chef culture at all. You're expected to be in if you are able to crawl out of bed. I've gutted through migraines, ulcerative colitis flareups (that means you're shitting a lot and some of it bloody) and out and out fevers and colds, including ugly chest colds that just linger (wash your hands twice as much, which means that by the end of it, yes, your hands are going to be cracked from all the scrubbing). I've worked with stitches in my hand. I've done a shift in unbelievable pain from a sprained whatever and then, only then, sought medical treatment where they basically threw the painkillers at me, except I then learned that I can't work on my feet with them and so didn't take them while on shift. I know a chef that kept working through five weeks of pneumonia.The moral of the story is; don't go into food service expecting to get off for evewy widdle ache.To be fair, food service needs to knock off the macho shit. In some of these scenarios, I've learned my limits and have put my foot down, but yeah, you don't call out because you're feeling fluttery. You call out because your ass isn't able to get out of bed. PS. Hangovers are no excuse at all; self-inflicted injury. Having had a full blown degenerate alcoholic chef drinking away in his office, I've become very insensitive to how drunks feel.PPS. Cutting high school? Go ahead, so long as your grades are up. Cutting college is, regrettably, a much worse habit that can lead to a rut -- you're also paying for it, so not recommended.

That teaches me to be far more cautious about where I eat...

I mean the food industry should be one of the fields you call sick the most, if you're sick and handle others food that can be a huge health risk. :/

Mahz said UIt's sad that you need a debilitating physical ailment to catch a break in most institutions while mental health is thoroughly ignored.

I'd say that's far more due to the fact that we treat physical illness far more seriously than mental illness.
Once mental illness is more recognized as being just as big an issue we'll probably see more sick days be allowed for mental reasons.

E3 - Thoughts?

Kidd said I see what you did there.Haha, I know, don't worry. The news came up before you made the forum. I was just responding to Assassin's Creed in general.But yeah, the co-op is a nice touch. Surprised it took them so long. However cutting playable female characters just annoys me. I always enjoyed the games, but I feel like they're getting worse and worse lately.

That reminds me how in the most recent Aliens game they allowed half of the playable characters to be female.
But gamer's screamed sexism because it was "unfair to the male dominated audience" -.-

The gaming community is one of the few area's I would agree that women have things worse then men.
The gaming community seriously needs to grow up and not act like the involvement of women is somehow a bad thing. -.-

Cpt Toellner said Bungie ended the Chief's story with Halo 3, that is what I consider to be the way Halo was meant to be told. They moved on and I support that 100%, all good stories have an end. Microsoft brings back the chief (despite having a huge universe to pull ideas from) because they know he is an icon and that they can make more money off his appearance then. I wouldn't blame 343 too much, they are really nothing more than pawns, you could see some creativity leaking through in Halo 4, but you could also see the executive oversight.If we see them try to make a Halo game with an original main character, its a good sign.

I get that. But if the series had to live on I would want it to at the hands of Bungie and not 343.
They at least would of shown some passion and care into the series, and would stayed true to Chiefs character.

And probably make a villian who shows up for more than 20 seconds so I can actually know his name and be somewhat intimidated by...
Or not shove the entire plot in a 2 minute narrated vision... seriously. That entire scene showed nothing but massive lazy story writing at 343's part.

E3 - Thoughts?

There are two things with E3 I mainly found to be big annoyances.

1. 343 and their Halo Presentation

-Reasons are all listed in the OP.
TLDROP: 343 cares nothing for Halo, they know nothing about Halo and I really wish Bungie could come back.

2. PS4's new TV Monitor system

Basically the one where you can set up a second TV... And the price was bloody expensive for the feature too.
Now, what bugs me here is that we can do this already. I have it set up on the computer I have now even, Sony basically released an over-priced product that does something we can already do designed for people tech-illiterate enough to not know this can already be done. -.-

Kidd said
Yeah, they dropped the ball with their excuses--literally, just excuses--for not including playable female characters in Unity. I used to love AC, but it's been going down hill since Revelations. And this is just the cherry on top of my bowl of misery.I am, however, excited for Nintendo's Zelda and SSB games. But that was the case before E3, so it hasn't really changed anything for me, haha.

I'm not sure how female playable character's really connected to what I was saying, or them dropping the ball. :/
I was commenting on their co-op campaign feature, that's all. I wasn't even aware of this female character issue until now because like I said, I don't own any of the games.

mdk said
It's almost as though bloodcrazed action series are targeted towards a primally insecure, primarily white, typically ignorant male audience.

Yea... This is true, the market is changing though and video game changes will come with it. As long as developer's recognize the market change taking place.