The World of Religion

By Saturday August 14, 2010

Found by Misanthropic Scott.



70 Comments
  1. Skeptic says:
    8/15/2010 at 12:58 pm

    ECA, re #37, (again)…“We can reverse this also. By showing that the perfection of what has been created. “

    Name one [god's] creation in this world that is perfection.

    Reply
  2. bobbo, words have a context says:
    8/15/2010 at 1:22 pm

    #33–Skeptic==why, that was downright poetic!

    Interesting how one can “just throw words” at an issue.

    My favorite one really is: “Atheism is a religion too!” Here the religious insult themselves by belittling non-belief BY EQUATING IT to a system of beliefs that they are ostensibly trying to defend.

    Its like the mother who calls her son: “You are a son of a bitch.”

    I remember my first day in bio-chem class. The prof said we were delving into evolution. Then he mentioned that something happens in the brains of the religious types: a switch is thrown, and they can no longer consider an issue that they can see for themselves rights in front of them. Memorable not for its insight, but it was the very first time I ever heard religion confronted in a public forum. Course, we all sat there and took notes.

    I digress. The point I was pointed towards is the notion that “anything can be taken out of context” as if analysis itself was a faulty process. I guess that is an attempt to make belief the default mode of perfection??? Ha. Ha. Well, context is all but the context of the very next sentence changing the meaning of the first sentence is “context.” A sentence changing its meaning because of an non referenced treatise on cultural roots is an entirely different “context” and totally arguable but it is not the “context” that counts.

    God stands (sic) outside (sic) of context.

    Silly Hoomans.

    Reply
  3. ethanol says:
    8/15/2010 at 1:25 pm

    @Skippy #39,

    Where did I say believers don’t take things out of context? Oh right, I didn’t. My point was that non-believers have a tendency to find a website which points out something out of context and then repost elsewhere. I caught Thomas doing that and pointed it out for the world to see.

    Ergo Thomas’ point is logically invalid. Thomas took verses out of context, thereby misrepresenting the statements. I put the verses back in context with the conclusion explained by the verses preceding. Therefore you should quit now or admit you made a mistake. And yes, when winning an argument I can say that I am right. Sorry, go back to debate 101 and logic 101 classes.

    Reply
  4. ECA says:
    8/15/2010 at 1:26 pm

    40,
    Correct,
    But as with MOST fathers, letting their KIDS find their OWN WAY..To learn from what he HOPEFULLY taught them.

    41,
    Which do you admire MORE..The watch on your hand or the internal parts that make it all work?
    Cant see the forest, cause of the trees..

    IF’ there is one. We wont find him until we understand HIM and learn MORE. But we are the KNOW IT ALL, 18-20 year olds, that have left the house to find the world on our own. AND for SOME odd reason, there are allot of people out there, THAT dont see this. WE are goofing UP BADLY. I still think there is a group TRYING to create/FORCE the coming of the rapture. They are trying to push BUTTONS in certain areas, to FORCE people to REACT..and react BADLY.
    This is a MANKIND problem..and God is just going to watch, and LAUGH his head off, when we BLOW ourselves OFF this planet.

    Reply
  5. Cursor_ says:
    8/15/2010 at 1:38 pm

    As a hard agnostic I wouldn’t mind the atheists if their hardliners didn’t use the same tactics of I’m Right You’re Wrong and trying to convert and preach their message just like foaming at the mouth theists do.

    I think that is why many think of them like they have a religion because the most vocal of them shout it from their lecterns like it was a pulpit.

    Cursor_

    Reply
  6. ECA says:
    8/15/2010 at 1:55 pm

    45,
    I like the politicians that DECLARE they are RELIGIOUS…and once in OFFICE, they act as if NOTHING happened, and act In a fashion NOT OF ANY BELIEF known to mankind.

    Any person that DECLARES, his religion, should LIVE by its tenants..It matters not his beliefs, but IF HE LIVES by them, you know what to expect.
    This cant be said NOW DAYS.

    Reply
  7. Skippy says:
    8/15/2010 at 1:57 pm

    Ethanol, #43

    Wow, that’s pretty arrogant to claim you’ve won a debate when clearly you haven’t.

    “Where did I say believers don’t take things out of context? Oh right, I didn’t”

    By saying that non-believers take things out of context, you are implying that believers don’t.

    “My point was that non-believers have a tendency to find a website which points out something out of context and then repost elsewhere.”

    Replace the word “non-believers” with “believers”, and that statement is equally true. Don’t pretend that believers are any less guilty, because they certainly aren’t, and the world is worse off for it because they outnumber the non-believers by a long shot.

    You don’t seem to be understanding my basic point, which is THERE IS NO CORRECT INTERPRETATION or REPRESENTATION OF THE BIBLE, even yours. Anyone who says they have the correct interpretation of anything in that ancient text is either lying or arrogant.

    Reply
  8. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:
    8/15/2010 at 2:46 pm

    Skippy–lying vs arrogant is the continuum you see? If I say 2+2=4 and other answers are wrong am I lying or being arrogant? If I say evolution is a demonstrated fact that intertwines/unites all of the biological and related science and those who do not accept this are wrong, and I lying or being arrogant?

    So, there is a line between science and belief, another one between close textual context and extended philosophical context. Silly to mix everything all up and conclude we can’t analyze and reach conclusions as is our nature to do.

    Reply
  9. dexton7 says:
    8/15/2010 at 3:50 pm

    # 29 Bmorebadboy,

    I completely agree with your statement that freedom is essential for the advancement of mankind. I also agree that all governments eventually go bad at some point in history and become tyrannical and have to be corrected or balanced at some point or another. History is full of examples of this.

    #33 Skeptic,

    I’m fine that you think that the concept of God is a fairy tale. For the record I am generally against highly organized religion as it usually becomes corrupted. However, you still make the close minded assumption that because human evils and free-will exist, then there can be no room for a God or a supreme intelligence in the universe. This would be like Einstein declaring that he has discovered the theory of everything and science can take a vacation because there is nothing left to discover. We know that this is false. I keep an open mind to the possibilities of science and of philosophy and do not see the last chapter of knowledge being finished any time soon. Everyone is guilty of ‘creating illusionary’ things. You still have imagination don’t you? If we were not endowed with this mental component then we wouldn’t be having this conversation much less on a computer and a network that did not ‘exist’ at one point in time any yet has been made possible by combining the laws of nature and our imperfect human imagination which is all that we have as a mechanism for discovery.

    Even Stephen Hawking has his reservations about completely denying the existence of God by stating, “However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God. (p.193)” and there is this quote as well… “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? – Stephen Hawking”

    If you can tell me how emergence came to being in the universe, how it works and why it exists, then I’ll accept your point of view.

    # 37 ECA

    You state “MOST religion in the USA is indoctrination, done to children WHO DONT KNOW any better… The rest of your statement has little to do with Much. Soon you will try to explain to me that the planet is only 4000 years old…”

    Yes point taken… but what about the indoctrination of philosophy, money, power, politics, nationalism, tribalism, racism and culturalism? You do not address those. I think this indeed has ‘much to do with much’ don’t you? I do agree that religion should grasp science, and no the Earth is older than 4000 years.

    Reply
  10. ECA says:
    8/15/2010 at 4:24 pm

    “Yes point taken… but what about the indoctrination of philosophy, money, power, politics, nationalism, tribalism, racism and culturalism? ”

    Yes, but many things take time and are learned from those around you. I leave religion and baptism until a person can DECIDE on their OWN as well as look at the OPTIONS/CHOICES/.. of other beliefs.
    I know what you are aiming AT, Im the wrong person to say much. AS I am a Neutral person. I LIKE to find MORE then 1 side to everything, and generally find more then 3-4 very easily.

    Reply
  11. bobbo, telling shit from shinola says:
    8/15/2010 at 5:22 pm

    Dexton–

    The argument is at least as old as the Greeks:

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?”
    - Epicurus

    Reply
  12. dexton7 says:
    8/15/2010 at 6:43 pm

    I enjoy a debate and good points have been mentioned. Yes, I agree that people need the opportunity decide on their thought and belief system for themselves and not to be forced into a mode of propagandistic thinking (which is rampant unfortunately now and many times in the past). And yes, the argument of the existence of God or a supreme intelligence in this universe is as old as the Greeks indeed if not much older.

    One of my primary precepts is to stand with my limited power against any tyrannical force that cripples our right to debate and speak freely, be it either from religious zealots, atheist absolutists or elite sociopaths. Only in this environment can humanity refine and distill our ideas about the nature of ourselves and the age old questions of existence.

    Reply
  13. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:
    8/15/2010 at 8:04 pm

    dexton==well thats great. Still, the god that everyone worships cannot be “explained” in any rational way. That means such belief is “irrational.” Irrational means: not being rational.

    Now just what is “absolute” about saying” I find the concept of god to be irrational and until more evidence is offered up, I choose to find my answers in science.

    You back up to a reasonable position, but out of the chute, you post that you keep rational and irrational beliefs on equal footing, belittling those who are rational. Thats not real good.

    when you move away from such false equivalencies, then you will enjoy debates because there will be something you can learn from them. Until then, you exist in a morass of quibbling falsehoods.

    Reply
  14. dexton7 says:
    8/15/2010 at 10:57 pm

    # 53 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist

    I don’t belittle rational people.. why would I do that?

    Also, here is a slice of irrational for you that allows you and I to exist…

    The number for π, e and √2 are ‘irrational numbers’. You cannot precisely gather π, e or √2 amount of rocks, apples, oranges, atoms or marmosets without clumsily rounding up or down.

    Technically speaking these numbers are called irrational numbers because they are uncountable and unmeasurable – which by your definition – is banned from your lego-land version of reality.

    So I guess that you might as well deny the existence of circles, probability and all of space-time just because it contains an irrational component. These mathematical properties do work on paper and in nature however, and is indeed not a falsehood. This is why sometimes the irrational and rational exhibit a complimentary duality in nature that you do not seem to like and makes your head hurt. Are you now going to say that all mathematicians are all wrong or speaking falsehoods on this matter?

    Many people thought that Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ (entangled particles) was completely logically irrational if not impossible from the understanding of the universe at the time. This instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. There was however an additional layer of complexity (or simplicity according to who you ask) that was overlooked that accounted for this.

    However this ‘irrational’ phenomenon has been proven to exist and is a very real property of the universe.

    This is why I usually don’t slam the mental door on a concept and say that something is ‘absolutely impossible’. At the very least I think that the probability is rather low for some things and high for others… and I do learn many things from debates by keeping an open mind.

    Rationality is a relative term that is only as good as the human mind in which it resides.

    Reply
  15. ECA says:
    8/15/2010 at 11:31 pm

    assumptions…
    dUCK FEATHERS AND Loud mouths..

    Reply
  16. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:
    8/16/2010 at 12:21 am

    dexton==well, congrats. You have stayed on target-there is “some” hope for you. I suggest you buy and read a dictionary and read it more often than you have. Just because various DIFFERENT things have been given the same arrangement of letters to designate them, doesn’t mean they are all the same. Your aren’t being irrational, just stupid. Silly rhetorician. Odd there are so few of you around. I wonder why that is?

    I note the slight of hand/brain? that allows you to label me with your continuing misdefined words/concepts. Irrantional number have little to do with our ability/occurence of existing. What is a “lego-land version of reality” and so on at almost every sentence.

    Gobbledegook. Anyone with the skills you present has short changed himself. Words have meaning, and yours are nonsense.

    Stoopid Hooman.

    Reply
  17. Dallas says:
    8/16/2010 at 4:00 am

    I liked it but it was not violent enough to truly capture the essence.

    Reply
  18. BmoreBadBoy says:
    8/16/2010 at 7:02 am

    bobbo,

    I don’t believe in god, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s a very logical and rational statement. I’ll always argue against god’s existence, but until you find a way to unequivocally prove something that you can’t see, smell, taste, touch or measure with our still very limited means, you can’t rule god out 100%.

    And what if god isn’t omnipotent, but compared to us feeble humans, he seems that way to us? Compare humans now to cavemen. They would see us as very powerful, magically so. Maybe god is an alien who is just as advanced to us? Would you rule that out as irrational?

    Reply
  19. Misanthropic Scott says:
    8/16/2010 at 12:32 pm

    #31 – ethanol,

    Sorry, I forgot about this topic for a while. I hope it hasn’t died yet.

    http://tinyurl.com/4bja8

    I may be misinformed about it being the most religious list of Jews who oppose Zionism. But, the strict fundamentalist reading of the Jewish religion is that when the Messiah comes, there will be peace and Jews will return to Israel. As only Jews for Jesus believe the messiah has already come, a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible suggests anti-Zionism.

    Perhaps I should have said the most fundamentalist of Jews rather than the most religious. The vast majority of Jews, religious and not, do support a Jewish state as a safe-haven.

    Reply
  20. bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist says:
    8/16/2010 at 1:06 pm

    #58–BMore==if one wants to get stupid, god might exist and you can’t prove he doesn’t===BUT the god that is trumped up in various bibles cannot exist as the concept is logically inconsistent as shown by Epicurus.

    Everything proposed by the religious that was contradicted by science has been proven to be wrong. Anyone equating the two: religion and science is a fool simply on pragmatic grounds.

    You can equate the validity of prayer with modern medicine, but I’ll take the pills.

    Reply

« Older Comments
Newer Comments »

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 25424 access attempts in the last 7 days.