Jump to content

Is God poison?


Recommended Posts

I do believe what Cyber means is that religion is full of hypocrites.

How many followers actually follow the laws as written (written by god no less!)?

pfft.

Call me what you want -- but you will never be able to call me a hypocrite. ;)

You really have a short memory. I pointed out your hypocrisy a few weeks ago, when you made opposing views on two different threads.

Edit: It's coming back to me now, you spoke against religious practices on one thread and defended them on another. After I pointed this out, you claimed it was cultural, not religious. I then pointed out that the country in question had an 85% (give or take I can't remember exactly now) of Muslims, therefore it WAS religious. You never got back to me after that hypocritical outing.

as a matter of fact I did -- remember I said FFS.. then someone asked what does FFS mean?

Remember -- no I am not going to go searching through old threads -- you go ahead though.

I think you should send your sister or daugher to walk around the middle east in her bikini -- yah think that'd be appropriate.

Oh yah and I remember mentioning something about me and my hubby coming over to have wild sex on your couch -- remember?

It's appropriate for us to do so in OUR house so why not at YOUR house? Duh. Frig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This makes me think of the frequent abuse of meaning that religions attempt. We see two frequent examples:

1-Faith and reason: these are contradictory in meaning. Anyone who pretends otherwise is using a private definition of one or the other.

2-Secular and religious: these too are mutually exclusive by definition. The purpose of the word secular is to distinguish that which is not religious. Religious apologists who pretend otherwise are arguing the impossible.

Figleaf, are these mutually exclusive?

A desire for clarity often leads to simplification and error.

It's true, simplification may lead to error, but so too can ambiguity. If two men look at a wall, one with normal eyesight and one with superior eyesight, the one with normal vision may say 'Look, the wall is grey.' The other may say, 'Look, the wall is pixelated.'

If we are to actually USE the concept of reason to the full extent it can help us, we need to use it accurately. Reason is the tool for making correct (therefore maximally useful) choices. Like any tool, it works properly in certain ways. You would not try to drive a nail with the claw end of a hammer.

Figleaf, you give too little credit to the wisdom of the religious people around you.

I disagree. Review the many discussions of religion on the forum and what do you find contributed by the religious proponents? Hackneyed doctrines long ago demolished by Bertrand Russell and others, assertions of right and wrong based on ancient documents of questionable provenance, peurile allegations that atheism and secularism are religions too, and petulant lashings out at skeptics (all the more petulant the more convincing the skeptic has been).

And, to be perfectly honest, I can't even imagine how to go about giving any credit to 'wisdom' that by any measure of reason is actually nonsense.

And Figleaf, can you put some faith in your formatting skills and fix your post above?

Could do, but I don't know which post you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yah and I remember mentioning something about me and my hubby coming over to have wild sex on your couch -- remember?

~PUKE~

Review the many discussions of religion on the forum and what do you find contributed by the religious proponents?

Disagree all you like but I pointed out the hypocricy of atheists wanting to restrict religious beliefs as intolerable as a theocratic state. Infringement of personal liberty is the problem. The reason behind the action is irrelevant - hence the fanatical atheists on this board are behing EXACTLY like the fanatical relgious people they so loathe. Hypocritical to the extreme. I received no feedback on that so I can only assume that they missed the point or they got it and chose to ignore it as there was no reasonable explanation for their fanaaticism and they didn't like the comparison.

Also, I am not a religious proponet - I just believe people should be free in thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality exists in spite of religion and it progresses in spite of religion, not because of it.

That's an intresting belief there.

Since there is no proof to back it up, it must be a non rational belief.

I only got a few seconds so I will make this quick....but a number of recent studies have provided strong evidence for a biological/evoloutonary origin to morality. Given that we can and do witness behavoir that humans would term moral in animals...and given that animals as far as I know do not practice religion...It might be fair to claim that morality exists independent of religion. Whether or not it exist inspite of it...I suppose is another question and would result down to a more subjective discussion concerning what is written in religous holy books, how it is interpreted, and how it relates to you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only got a few seconds so I will make this quick....but a number of recent studies have provided strong evidence for a biological/evoloutonary origin to morality. Given that we can and do witness behavoir that humans would term moral in animals...and given that animals as far as I know do not practice religion...It might be fair to claim that morality exists independent of religion. Whether or not it exist inspite of it...I suppose is another question and would result down to a more subjective discussion concerning what is written in religous holy books, how it is interpreted, and how it relates to you...

I have no doubt there is subjective evidence, but if the criteria in this positivist interrogation is the same for one and for the other, I think we must have concrete physical evidence.

personally i think any observation of morality in animals is plain anthropomorphication.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~PUKE~

EXACTLY!

What is non offensive to you may be offensive to me and visa versa. ;)

So you gonna go to the middle east and parade yer daughters in their itsy bitsy bikinis? If not, why not? After all it is perfectly acceptable in our culture -- how dare any other culture say wearing a bikini in public is unacceptable!

Of course you'd have to give up your dream of blonde grandchildren. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~PUKE~

EXACTLY!

What is non offensive to you may be offensive to me and visa versa. ;)

So you gonna go to the middle east and parade yer daughters in their itsy bitsy bikinis? If not, why not? After all it is perfectly acceptable in our culture -- how dare any other culture say wearing a bikini in public is unacceptable!

Of course you'd have to give up your dream of blonde grandchildren. LOL

What's disgusting is not allowing a woman the freedom to do what she wants with her body and the way she dresses. What's disgusting is having it told to you from a religious pedestal and being threatened with murder if you disagree.

Comparing it to you coming over and having sex on my couch (although somewhat intriguing) is nonsense because that presumably involves you breaking in, had I not invited you to enter my home. If I did invite you to enter my home, I'm at liberty to ask you to leave if you act in a way that I feel is offensive.

To think that a theocratic government's "home" is the entire country and the people in it are to bend to the government's whim is crazy. Morally speaking, people should have personal freedom without fear of being murdered by neighbours, and especially not the government, for something like the way they dress.

Yeah, it was unacceptable to dress like people do nowadays even a few decades ago, but that's why morality advances. Society is progresses in spite of what religious dogma teaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I pointed out the hypocricy of atheists wanting to restrict religious beliefs as intolerable as a theocratic state.

Are atheists attempting to restrict religious beliefs? Could you provide an example or two?

Infringement of personal liberty is the problem. The reason behind the action is irrelevant - hence the fanatical atheists on this board are behing EXACTLY like the fanatical relgious people they so loathe.

By doing what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous examples in this thread, mostly Drea and Cyber calling for an infringement on religious rights.

That's pretty scary in my opinion.

Innit tho!

mostest espeshully sinse i got my own tee vee show seen by milliuns!

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous examples in this thread, ...

Such as ... ?

You have been following along just like me.

Yes, and that's why I'm mystified as to what examples you think support you view.

How about instead of playing silly games, you actually point out specifically something you think supports your contention that 'fanatical atheists' are seeking to restrict religious rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to admit that I think it's child abuse to label children as being of a particular type of religion. It's saying they have ideas and beliefs in things they can't possibly evaluate and understand.

Imagine calling a child "communist" or "leftwing" or "rightwing", sounds ridiculous right? Saying a child is Muslim or Jewish or Christian is equally ridiculous to me.

I think if we invest in teaching children reason and understanding, they'd grow up not believing in fairies (even though they'd never be able to disprove their existence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality exists in spite of religion and it progresses in spite of religion, not because of it.

That's an intresting belief there.

Since there is no proof to back it up, it must be a non rational belief.

I only got a few seconds so I will make this quick....but a number of recent studies have provided strong evidence for a biological/evoloutonary origin to morality. Given that we can and do witness behavoir that humans would term moral in animals...and given that animals as far as I know do not practice religion...It might be fair to claim that morality exists independent of religion. Whether or not it exist inspite of it...I suppose is another question and would result down to a more subjective discussion concerning what is written in religous holy books, how it is interpreted, and how it relates to you...

Strong evidence? Most recent genetic research you read in magazines is theoretical. There is no strong evidence. The fact that it gets published and makes a magazine does not make it established truth. Whether you believe in God or not or whatever you believe: an honest assessment of will show you that there is no strong evidence for anything when it comes to evolution science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People accept evolution on faith. The fossil record does not support the theory. No missing links accept for wishful thinking used in sketches on scant remains of animals. The original proofs of evolution have all been debunked. There are even evolutionists who will admit that school textbooks are outdated (still using the original pillars of evolution theory) and that evolution is a big leap of faith.

Who is it that reads this post? You are made of elements. Yet there are no elements in the periodic table with the ability to read. Why should elements care about morality? When a boulder rolls off of a cliff ledge

and begins hurtling toward a small piece of sandstone below, does it say to itself "That rock is my brother. I will not fall on it." For what purpose would elements (with no ability to think or feel anyway) organize themselves into complex beings which would care about morality and experience emotion when they could just be like the rock. And they will die anyway. No, there is something elusive to life that science cannot fathom. The molecule does not decide within its state of being unable to decide to develop intelligence. Nothing shall come of nothing. Intelligence is. It preceeds. Intelligence was, is, and always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong evidence? Most recent genetic research you read in magazines is theoretical. There is no strong evidence. The fact that it gets published and makes a magazine does not make it established truth. Whether you believe in God or not or whatever you believe: an honest assessment of will show you that there is no strong evidence for anything when it comes to evolution science.

How do you define strong?

People accept evolution on faith.

Maybe some people do. But others consider it and evaluate its claims and decide on a basis of probability to believe it, at least in the absense of a better explanation.

The fossil record does not support the theory.

The fossil record does support the theory, it just does not conclusively prove the theory.

The original proofs of evolution have all been debunked.

Cite?

..., there is something elusive to life that science cannot fathom.

If you substitute the phrase 'has not' for the word 'cannot', you would have a true statement. As it is, you have a mere conjecture dressed up as an assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing "illusive" about life.

Our human mind (and all the itty bitty animal/insect minds too) are simply neurons firing and connecting. There isn't like a "little soul" inside your brain... Your thoughts are just this, nothing more. Your dreams too -- all just boring old neurons firing away.

Notice the Alzhiemers or stroke patient -- some of his/her neurons no longer fire properly as they are damaged.

When we die we all of our neurons stop firing and, like a burned out lightbulb, we are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jefferiah, your ignorance is astounding. Evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. We know gravity is there because we can test for it with repeated results. Evolution happens because it has been tested and results have been repeated. If there was no such thing as evolution, farmers have been wasting their time for thousands of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong evidence? Most recent genetic research you read in magazines is theoretical. There is no strong evidence. The fact that it gets published and makes a magazine does not make it established truth. Whether you believe in God or not or whatever you believe: an honest assessment of will show you that there is no strong evidence for anything when it comes to evolution science.

How do you define strong?

People accept evolution on faith.

Maybe some people do. But others consider it and evaluate its claims and decide on a basis of probability to believe it, at least in the absense of a better explanation.

The fossil record does not support the theory.

The fossil record does support the theory, it just does not conclusively prove the theory.

The original proofs of evolution have all been debunked.

Cite?

..., there is something elusive to life that science cannot fathom.

If you substitute the phrase 'has not' for the word 'cannot', you would have a true statement. As it is, you have a mere conjecture dressed up as an assertion.

Cannot is the appropriate word. Science is a vain attempt at perfect knowledge because it can only determine at best limited facts which are all divisible entities. Why is the fence red? Because a man painted it. Why did the man paint it? Because he didn't like the color originally. Why did he not like the color? Science cannot fathom the unfathomable because science is limited to discriminatory logic. In breaking things down and discriminating facts from observation there is always a certain amount of seperation from the whole truth. You cannot ever be objective or outside the system. You are trapped in the system.

Neurons can transmit sensory material, but who is the receiver? Science can always delve deeper about what the lens is or how the image travels, but it cannot find the Perceiver. The thought is a spark, but who listens to the thought? Who understands the thought? There is no answer, yet it is apparent that something does. Evolution of life would say that life begins by accident and without real purpose or design. And yet the whole philosophy of evolution does a complete 180 and then supports the idea of purpose and in turn finds support from it. Evolution is aimed at preserving life and making it better. But for what purpose. Why would inanimate matter care whether or not it had the intelligence in order to survive in a certain form or organism. It cannot be destroyed anyway, right. Law of conservation of mass energy. Why do you blink when I move my hand suddenly in front of your eye? If you are nothing more than neurons what are you protecting? To what end was it a reasonable development to evolve the trait of clinging to a thing called life when you will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannot is the appropriate word.

Oh yeah? Well, prove that then.

Science is a vain attempt at perfect knowledge...

You don't have a correct understanding of what science is.

Science is a method of building sound understanding of the environment by systematic application of reason to evidence. It uses experimentation to test hypotheses. It uses induction to establish general predictions based on probabilities. At its best, it is always skeptical, always ready to test new data objectively and change its predictions based on those tests.

I would urge you to read a few basic commentaries on the nature of science. That would help you understand better the subject you have been trying to address here.

Science cannot fathom the unfathomable because science is limited to discriminatory logic.

No, science cannot fathom the unfathomable because the definition of unfathomable would be that it cannot be fathomed. Your closed-loop of logic is perfect, except it has no meaning.

Pick something and prove that it is 'unfathomable' rather than merely unfathomed. You can't.

Neurons can transmit sensory material, but who is the receiver? Science can always delve deeper about what the lens is or how the image travels, but it cannot find the Perceiver. The thought is a spark, but who listens to the thought? Who understands the thought? ...

Poetry is not proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying a child is Muslim or Jewish or Christian is equally ridiculous to me.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, this is exactly what the bar mitvah and bat mitvah represent: The age of majority in the congregation, the point at which a person chooses or rejects religion. Obviously, rejection is probably an extremely rare occurence, but the core idea does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same as confirmation for Catholics, but when I was 13 years old and I was told by my teachers I had to do it because it was part of the religion classes being taught, I didn't openly have the choice. At least to a 13 year old, not doing what all the other 13 year olds in your class are doing makes the option non-existent. Not to mention the fact that your parents and teachers are saying its what you're "supposed to do."

When parents are expecting this and bar/bat mitzvahs of their children, it is nearly impossible as a child to refuse. The last thing you want to do is disappoint your parents and be an outcast among your friends at that age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same as confirmation for Catholics, but when I was 13 years old and I was told by my teachers I had to do it because it was part of the religion classes being taught, I didn't openly have the choice. At least to a 13 year old, not doing what all the other 13 year olds in your class are doing makes the option non-existent. Not to mention the fact that your parents and teachers are saying its what you're "supposed to do."

When parents are expecting this and bar/bat mitzvahs of their children, it is nearly impossible as a child to refuse. The last thing you want to do is disappoint your parents and be an outcast among your friends at that age.

Yes, I understand that, Cybercoma. But that is not simply a religious issue. It is an inescapable fact of life that sometimes people are going to tell you one thing or you will feel pressure to comply. If it is not religion it is something else, and if it's not parents instilling something in their kids, it will be society, or some sort of collective government which makes the decisions. Sometimes you are right and the world is wrong, and sometimes the world is right and you are wrong. It's never always one or the other. If the people around you all jump off a bridge it might be wise to not conform, but when the peers of an alcoholic show concern and say he has a problem he might console himself that he is doing his own thing and going against the crowd, but the peer group is probably right.

Perhaps you had a more strict religious upbringing than I did. My parents are both Christian and I had to go to Church when I was small, but they never made me feel pressured. I often defend religious people on here but at the same time I am not really very religious either. I don't read the Bible much, but I have, and I don't go to Church. And when I was a kid I hated going to Sunday school and having to sing kiddy church songs. And one time I screamed in Church "I hate these stupid babyish songs." And pretty much everyone got a good laugh over that. And they never made me sing anymore.

And I know that sometimes a person with a very particular belief about something because of a religious idea can be annoying, and I often find myself arguing with them when I am confronted with something like this. But then at the same time I would rather deal with that when it arises than to open up a can of worms where we start systematically banning God because in some cases people who claim to follow Him are hypocritical, unreasonable, etc etc. The problem with this kind of thinking is that its basically the same as the problem many people have with religion. It's a system. And system's are necessary in life, but they are sometimes just "necessary evil's". There are never ever ever enough words, clauses or amendments within any system to account for all possible situations. And people will disagree over which situations are more important and to be taken more into account. That is just life. I can't help it. But if you start legislating more you might make it worse, you know. Having to go to a Bar Mitzvah or to Church is not the worst thing in the world you know. Seriously, if thats the sum total of your problems (and I am sure it isnt) you have had a pretty good life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what purpose would elements (with no ability to think or feel anyway) organize themselves into complex beings which would care about morality and experience emotion when they could just be like the rock. And they will die anyway. ... The molecule does not decide within its state of being unable to decide to develop intelligence. Nothing shall come of nothing. Intelligence is. It preceeds. Intelligence was, is, and always will be.

The simple answer is that it is the most energetically favourable. For what purpose would elements in a tennis ball roll down a hill when they could stay at the top of the hill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...