[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
Religion is a circular argument

So is a certain famous argument beginning with 'We hold these truths to be self-evident', and yet this is considered quite valid. The difference is... what?

Only by its manufacture can we decipher its true artificiality as a series of man-made stories. [/B]

In other words, the only way to disprove religion is to create another one? Because secular humanism exists, all religion is false?

[benign]

Did you even read this...

Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day�s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in�mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can�t get you; in front of him there�s the forest�it�s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water�water�s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here�s cousin Ug and he�s caught a mammoth�mammoth�s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it�s fantastic.

But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, �well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in� and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says �So who made this then?� Who made this? � you can see why it�s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, �Well, because there�s only one sort of being I know about _who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he�s probably male�. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , �If he made it, what did he make it for?�_ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, �This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely� and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

D.A

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
Should be a law against long quotes...

That's an opinion. Show some evidence.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
Did you even read this...

yes, but I'm still waiting for your empirical observations which support your contention.

the quote is merely a rhetorical argument based on a hypothetical example...philosophy, sophistry. It is not an empirical observation for the meaning of life, nor is it an empirical observation which proves the nonexistence of a supreme being.

For someone who is disdainful of the "self-delusion" of religion, you don't really provide much that isn't just as tenuous (if not more so) to disprove it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by benign:
Did you even read this...

Quoting Douglas Adams, while making wonderful reading, does not make it true.

-s*

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by wataru:
What garbage. Just because someone doesn't believe in "god" doesn't mean they're self-centered.

no god != no morals

Actually, Theists are often pretty self-centered - the earth is the center of the solar system, we are God's main creation, blah blah, ...

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I deal with civil and non-aggressive people in a civil and non-aggressive manner

Apparently, people who disagree with your beliefs are non-civil.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Didn't you read my post? Ghuddha created all the Gods including Christ.

Who created Ghuddha?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
Apparently, people who disagree with your beliefs are non-civil.

No, people who belittle me and or others for their beliefs are non-civil.

I have no problem with a person being an Atheist. I *DO* have a problem with a person being an Atheist and telling me I'm wrong and stupid for being a Theist.

If you or anyone feels the need to attack my religious beliefs, don't be surprised if I "burn your house down" (figuratively, of course).

Have a nice day.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
Did you even read this...

Yes. As Spheric Harlot noted, DA is wonderful reading, but he doesn't have any more of a monopoly on The Truth than I do.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yes. As Spheric Harlot noted, DA is wonderful reading, but he doesn't have any more of a monopoly on The Truth than I do.

besides which, if we'll note, the beginning of the quote starts with "Imagine early man....".
hardly empirical evidence. Its really just a mental excercise, nothing more.

[wolfen]

Hi, everyone! Glad to see the current religion thread is humming along.

Just checking in.


wolfen

(my presence usually foreshadows the death of a thread...couldn't hurt.)

[Stradlater]

Nice Douglas Adams read, but as they've shown you, they DID read it, and you still haven't answered anything.

[benign]

That I can answer an unsolvable paradox
that has been so very questionable but
irresolvable for so long would be a stretch.

The real empirical evidence is that you don't have
any evidence of the supernatural yourself to bring
to the table, only archaic superstitious stories.
The burden of proof is on the story maker.

By your own description it's a blind faith that
cannot be seen or felt unless you believe it to
be real.

Allegorical or literal stories is that evidence.

By the judo-christian version, it's intrinsic
dichotomy between allegorical stories and its
own teaching that tells it should be taken
literally must show to all but the biggest cretin
how false the stories in it are.
It's history of heretic courts and inquisitions,
religious wars and crusades all must have
been known by your omnipotent creator as
he made us also does not make sense.
That his invention would do more harm than
good puts your benign god in the dock.

Why invisible unless something to hide.
That your creator does not exist must
be empirical evidence for his non existence.

The old and new testaments side by side
must point to an artificial or duel authorship
or personality by the creator/s of them.

A mad psychotically evil god ?

That the writings are so different must
be an indication of the proof of its artificiality.

That there are monotheisms and polytheisms
all contridicting each other should sound alarm
bells to all theists as to his validity.
Why should an omnipresent god spread so many
different versions of the one word ?

Empirical observations of never seeing any
supernatural event that could not be explained by
science, or heard of anyone 'related or I've
been acquainted with' to see anything that could
show a divine supernatural presence on this earth.
No TV or journal has ever documented any bridges
opening between this an another spiritual world.

In the last hundred years your God has disappeared.
All we have seen is mans ablity to make up stories,
especially to empower and enslave others.
From africa to south america, from japan to the
middle east, each had a ruler who used superstition
to control his populace - an evil family of doctrines.

How did an omnipresent god let his name be used
for so much evil so willingly and with prior knowledge

Religion may tame and train the perverse, give meaning
to the ignorant. but a fraud, however pious is still a fraud.

Carefully read the fifteeth chapter of the first book
of samuel - the alter supports the throne.

Religion is like a glow worm - it needs the darkness
in order to shine. Ignorance always the air it breaths,
and of course willing slaves.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
The real empirical evidence is that you don't have
any evidence of the supernatural yourself to bring
to the table, only archaic superstitious stories.
The burden of proof is on the story maker.

Bull. You made the assertion, thus the burden of proof is on YOU. So, let's have it.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
The real empirical evidence is that you don't have
any evidence of the supernatural yourself to bring
to the table, only archaic superstitious stories.
The burden of proof is on the story maker.

...

Empirical observations of never seeing any
supernatural event that could not be explained by
science, or heard of anyone 'related or I've
been acquainted with' to see anything that could
show a divine supernatural presence on this earth.
No TV or journal has ever documented any bridges
opening between this an another spiritual world.

You don't know what "empirical evidence" means, do you? It's not empirical if it's based on lack of observation.

Also: get some original ideas, you're tooting the horn of the new atheist wave without enough knowledge on the matter.

[york28]

I read through the first five or six pages of this thread today, and then gave up. Here's what I think:

Religion consists of a set of ideas about how the world works, and a person's relationship to that world. Obviously there are going to be differing opinions about this. But everyone's having a "Does God Exists" argument or worrying over whether the bible is factual.

The bible has 2 version of creation to start with. In one, God creates Adam and Eve together, in his image. In another, he creates Adam first, then, after creating animals, gets the idea to make a woman from his body. Right there is proof that the Bible, while containing a lot of good ideas, can not be taken literally.

Instead of trying to prove that each others' ideas are wrong, which is completely counterproductive (it's not a like a Christian is going to stop going to church because of a MacNN thread), i t would be more productive to just compare the differences without resorting to calling people names because they believe something. Just because you were raised a certain way and have not had a certain set of experiences that allow you sto see something a certain way, does not make those views wrong.

I, nor anyone else that has been in this lounge, actually knows for sure if the earth is 6000 years old or not. All we can do is dig up ideas about it, scientific or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that our views are directly influenced by those of others, and thusly are no more correct than those that were retrieved from an ancient book. Am I saying the earth was created 6000 years ago? Hell no. But if you want to think so, it's cool with me. I don't know how old the earth is, and I don't really care to either. It doesn't change the way I plan on living my life.

Knocking religion as something that is "foolish" or "ignorant" actually displays how little of its true functionality you understand. Religion is about much, much more that god and creationism and the bible. Calling someone stupid for believing in a faith is itself an utterly ignorant act.

[benign]

Knocking religion as something that is "foolish" or "ignorant" actually displays how little of its true functionality you understand. Religion is about much, much more that god and creationism and the bible. Calling someone stupid for believing in a faith is itself an utterly ignorant act.

Religion may tame and train the perverse, give meaning
to the ignorant. but a fraud, however pious is still a fraud.

Most religious types have been so cushioned
by their superstitious parents/communities
that they will never rethink their tenuous
position - Call'em cretins, ignorant fools -
It always wakes 'em up - and as modern
men thats our duty. Can't change 'em but
you can wake'em.

To question your elders is always the
beginning, to being your own man.

Always call a superstitious fraud - a fraud
york28 - otherwise your just another monkey.

[Lerkfish]

still waiting for that empirical evidence.

meanwhile, is it just me or does this guy keep recycling the same lines over and over?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
Call'em cretins, ignorant fools -
It always wakes 'em up

More and more idiocy with each post. I've rarely seen religious people "wake up" through name-calling.

Originally posted by benign:
and as modern
men thats our duty. Can't change 'em but
you can wake'em.

To question your elders is always the
beginning, to being your own man.

Where do you get this shit? "Our duty"? "The beginning, [sic] to being your own man"? Why would you think you had this duty, or that specific things make you your own man? We are our own man by nature, in our society, we're given choices, let them stand individually.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
meanwhile, is it just me or does this guy keep recycling the same lines over and over?

It's not just you; the guy isn't very intelligent.

[york28]

Most religious types have been so cushioned
by their superstitious parents/communities
that they will never rethink their tenuous
position - Call'em cretins, ignorant fools -
It always wakes 'em up - and as modern
men thats our duty. Can't change 'em but
you can wake'em.

But as long as you align yourself as someone's enemy, no matter how much logic and reason and evidence you have on your side, you will never change anyone's mind. Not one.

I agree that religion can blind people to realities that might seem obvious otherwise, and can prevent people from thinking on their own. But forcing it down someone's throat will only make them throw up.

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
It's not just you; the guy isn't very intelligent.

Do you have an opinion on the subject
that does not include an appraisal of me.

Whenever I turn around there you
are with your nose up my ass.

Are you a theists, agnostic, atheist or
are you just an ass sniffing snork.

The latter i think.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
That I can answer an unsolvable paradox that has been so very questionable but irresolvable for so long would be a stretch.

And yet, that is exactly what you claim to do.

The real empirical evidence is that you don't have any evidence of the supernatural yourself to bring to the table, only archaic superstitious stories.
The burden of proof is on the story maker.

You know, a lot of people make this argument. Frankly, I'm not sure it's true.

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. It is not evidence of absence, at least not in any scientific standard. We use it in the legal system, in an attempt to safeguard against wrongful conviction, but a lack of data is only a lack of data.

This is why I call crap on your "empirical observations" theory; you cannot empirically observe nothing. It doesn't make my beliefs any better than yours, but it doesn't make your beliefs any better than mine. If there is any high ground on which I stand, it is that I, at least, admit the uncertainty of my position. You do not. Which of us is blind?

By your own description it's a blind faith that cannot be seen or felt unless you believe it to be real.

Look, I am fully aware that not everyone has had the experiences that I have had. This is why I can understand why you might believe as you do. That you believe there is no higher power is not the issue; the issue is your refusal to admit that your position is just as much taken on faith as mine is.

By the judo-christian version, it's intrinsic dichotomy between allegorical stories and its own teaching that tells it should be taken literally must show to all but the biggest cretin how false the stories in it are.

Christianity, in and of itself, does not teach that its stories must be taken literally. That is added on by some fundamentalist churches.

My own take on that one? I believe that some things in the Bible are meant to be taken literally, and some are not, and that generally it's not hard to tell which is which. The bits about beasts and such are obviously meant to be allegorical (were it written in modern times it would probably use machines as metaphors instead), but how many ways can one interpret 'thou shalt not steal'?

It's history of heretic courts and inquisitions, religious wars and crusades all must have been known by your omnipotent creator as he made us also does not make sense.

Strange that your "history" falls mainly on a single agressor sect, yet you project it onto Christianity as a whole.

That his invention would do more harm than good puts your benign god in the dock.

Look at it this way, benign. Let's say that there is a god, and you know this, because the guy personally comes down to talk to you on a more or less daily basis. Now, let's say that this god has only one commandment, a small thing but one with dire consequences which have been thoroughly explained. Not a case of "don't push the red button", but more like "don't push the red button or the world will explode, and here's what that would mean". Would you push the button?

Probably not. Indeed, pushing the button would defy all logic. It does not make sense. Would you fault anyone, even omniscient being for assuming you wouldn't? I don't think I could do that.

Does omniscience include things which do not yet exist, such as, say, the future? I don't think it does. If you look at the various prophecies in the Bible, you'll note that none of them are outside the realm of things that the God put forth in that book could arrange to happen. It's like me saying "I'm going to go to work today"; I know I'm going to do it, but this does not mean I can see into the future.

Why invisible unless something to hide.

Because the question of whether or not we need God was brought up, and so we have been given a chance to fend for ourselves, to settle the question once and for all. And frankly, I don't think we've done very well.

That your creator does not exist must be empirical evidence for his non existence.

Um, you say this while accusing us of using circular logic? I smell hypocrisy.

That there are monotheisms and polytheisms all contridicting each other should sound alarm bells to all theists as to his validity.
Why should an omnipresent god spread so many different versions of the one word ?

Why, indeed? Perhaps because "an omnipresent God" didn't do it?

Empirical observations of never seeing any supernatural event that could not be explained by science, or heard of anyone 'related or I've been acquainted with' to see anything that could show a divine supernatural presence on this earth.

One: you cannot observe a negative. You can observe a counter-positive which indirectly proves the negative, but that's not what you are describing here.

Two: You would trust someone you've been acquainted with? Sounds like yielding to authority, something you claim religious folks do all the time.

No TV or journal has ever documented any bridges opening between this an another spiritual world.

Does the term 'bridge' even apply? I can admit that I don't know. You can't admit that.

In the last hundred years your God has disappeared.

So you've put a time frame on it? Care to elaborate on that?

How did an omnipresent god let his name be used for so much evil so willingly and with prior knowledge

You assume 'prior knowledge', which is assuming too much.

As for why? Because the only way to prevent it would be to commit a crime beyond imagining: stripping some six billion humans and all their descendants of their humanity. Perhaps granting it in the first place was a mistake -I'm not really qualitied to answer that- but it was done, and cannot be undone by anything with any right to be called benevolent.

[benign]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
still waiting for that empirical evidence.

meanwhile, is it just me or does this guy keep recycling the same lines over and over?

Recycling the same lines over and over...
as a teacher of anatomy, I have at
least some empirical evidence as to your
drawing skills - learn to draw hands.

That an artist cannot draw an object thats
always in front of his face does not fair well
for his prowess to judge anything - even
what's under his nose it seems, is not worth
observing properly.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
Recycling the same lines over and over...

...which isn't something you have any right to complain about, given that you're guilty of exactly the same thing.

as a teacher of anatomy, I have at least some empirical evidence as to your drawing skills - learn to draw hands.

OK, I admit that I was away from this thread for a while, but where the heck did this drawing metaphor come from, and what the heck do you mean by it?

That an artist cannot draw an object thats always in front of his face does not fair well for his prowess to judge anything - even what's under his nose it seems, is not worth observing properly.

That's a classic ad hominem attack, which seems to be your usual modus operandi. If you want to know why you're not taken seriously here, you might want to start by examining your style of argument.

You're not "waking up" anybody. Live out your little fantasy if you wish, but the fact is that the only effect your arguments have is that of a negative example.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
Recycling the same lines over and over...
as a teacher of anatomy, I have at
least some empirical evidence as to your
drawing skills - learn to draw hands.

That an artist cannot draw an object thats
always in front of his face does not fair well
for his prowess to judge anything - even
what's under his nose it seems, is not worth
observing properly.

LOL!

what gives you the impression I can't draw hands? I'm just curious.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
OK, I admit that I was away from this thread for a while, but where the heck did this drawing metaphor come from, and what the heck do you mean by it?

*scratches head*
I dunno. I guess he saw in my profile I'm a graphic artist and decided I was a bad one, for some reason.....and that somehow pointing that out to me would stun me mentally and make me forget to ask him to back up his claim he had empirical evidence of the meaning of life and the nonexistence of god....everytime I try to get him to answer that question, he calls me a bad artist...

which is really kind of funny. The two things aren't even related.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
Do you have an opinion on the subject
that does not include an appraisal of me.

Whenever I turn around there you
are with your nose up my ass.

Are you a theists, agnostic, atheist or
are you just an ass sniffing snork.

The latter i think.

Maybe I should avoid the question
and dance around it like you do.
you have yet to answer most of
mine; a snork? a snork...ha ha
At least this time, you're
being a little more direct, although
only to an insult, and not to an
actual question. If you haven't
noticed, I've insulted you only in
relation to your comments (or lack
thereof, because you never seem
to actually address anything new,
just a constant recycling of the
same old garbage. Maybe I should
praise you for bringing out something
new, I've never heard you say "snork"
before. Being called a made-up
name is much more fun than your
usual name-calling repertoire.
Cretin. Hah.

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Maybe I should avoid the question
and dance around it like you do.

I was hoping for more from you
than 'I'll Pass'. Do you think this
world was made by a creator
four thousand years ago - Snork.




Is this a picture of you and
Mr.Robbe-Grillet, You look
really smart in that pic.

As I majored in meta-fiction
of the early 50's to the 80's,
I had a fondness for his work.
But not ging'ers.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
I was hoping for more from you
than 'I'll Pass'. Do you think this
world was made by a creator
four thousand years ago - Snork.




Is this a picture of you and
Mr.Robbe-Grillet, You look
really smart in that pic.

As I majored in meta-fiction
of the early 50's to the 80's,
I had a fondness for his work.
But not ging'ers.

Pardon, but when you get through flexing that enormous brain of yours, which no doubt requires a cranium the size of an emac, could you get that EVIDENCE to support your ASSERTIONS.

Otherwise, you're the "snork", and a rather megalomaniacal one at that.

Thanks muchly,

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
I was hoping for more from you
than 'I'll Pass'. Do you think this
world was made by a creator
four thousand years ago - Snork.




Is this a picture of you and
Mr.Robbe-Grillet, You look
really smart in that pic.

As I majored in meta-fiction
of the early 50's to the 80's,
I had a fondness for his work.
But not ging'ers.

Why are you asking me a question I answered already in this thread? Even if you missed it back then, it should be obvious if you read my posts with half of a mind. Although, I'm guessing that you'll probably make the wrong assumption.

Unlike you, I answer the questions posed to me at one time or another. Even as far as that picture goes, it was indirectly answered, but that one was in another thread, I believe. Here we go, just for you:

The website is not mine, and obviously then neither is the picture (although it was nice of you to felicitously make fun of whoever is depicted), but Nabokov is worth learning about. Answer me this: did you not understand the introduction to Lolita? Your "tea" parody would perpetuate as much. Three "trips" are not taken to sound one consonant. So you majored in meta-fiction? Good one.

[undotwa]

Oh and when talking of Catholicism and it's evil acts: differentiate between actions which were done by the state (remember the Vatican was a state to, and still is), and the SPIRITUAL body of the the church. There were bad proestants, bad athiests, bad Catholics, etc. but these are all individual people and do not reflect upon the institution spiritually and their philosophy on what's right and wrong.

For example, the Catholic Church made a proclamation that the Church will excommunicate any Spaniard (or anyone really, but it was the Spaniards mainly) who abused and enslaved American Indians. Naturally no real formal excommunications were made, because the Vatican was really under control by the Holy Roman Empire which was associated with Spain through marriage, but the intention was there, and since it is a spiritual proclaimation, no formal proceedings is really necessary for something to happen. Any Catholic who did (or does today) not agree completely with all of the spiritual teachings of the Church were in effect excommunicated.

Inquisitions, Crusades, Heretic Courts, all really actions of the states, and were really against the Church's own teachings.

[Sherwin]

Hasn't this thread died yet?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hasn't this thread died yet?

Unfortunately, no.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Oh and when talking of Catholicism and it's evil acts: differentiate between actions which were done by the state (remember the Vatican was a state to, and still is), and the SPIRITUAL body of the the church. There were bad proestants, bad athiests, bad Catholics, etc. but these are all individual people and do not reflect upon the institution spiritually and their philosophy on what's right and wrong.

See, that's the problem. A lot of people have decided that simply because the power of religion has been abused, that it was designed to be abused.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Unfortunately, no.

Has a normal thread ever been this big before (not a screenshot-post or word-association/post-count-jumper thread)?

[RooneyX]

19 pages later his girlfriend still thinks the world is 4000 years old. But by now things are way off-topic.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Millennium:
See, that's the problem. A lot of people have decided that simply because the power of religion has been abused, that it was designed to be abused.

Been abused? Yes, you've already acknowledged that.

Been designed for abuse? The fact that it's system that portends to tell individuals how to live every aspect of their lives (forcibly if need be) based on a self-proclaimed authority that has never been seen or heard? Or based on an authority that can never be verified? Yeah, I'd say it's a system that's been designed to be abused. The fact that it's a patriarchal system itself means there is a major segment (females) of the population that doesn't share in the power and privileges that the ruling class does. If that's not a world class scam then what is?

Let me quote someone who has put it in a clever and more succinct way. From George Carlin:

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy ****!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
The fact that it's a patriarchal system itself means there is a major segment (females) of the population that doesn't share in the power and privileges that the ruling class does. If that's not a world class scam then what is?

Not all religions are partiarchal, however. Are you sure you're not confusing 'religion' with 'a particular religion I feel bitterness towards'? Carlin certainly did.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Been abused? Yes, you've already acknowledged that.

Been designed for abuse? The fact that it's system that portends to tell individuals how to live every aspect of their lives (forcibly if need be) based on a self-proclaimed authority that has never been seen or heard? Or based on an authority that can never be verified? Yeah, I'd say it's a system that's been designed to be abused. The fact that it's a patriarchal system itself means there is a major segment (females) of the population that doesn't share in the power and privileges that the ruling class does. If that's not a world class scam then what is?

Let me quote someone who has put it in a clever and more succinct way. From George Carlin:

just for fun, let's take you statement and apply it to the medical profession...

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Been abused? Yes, you've already acknowledged that.

Been designed for abuse? The fact that it's system that portends to tell individuals how to live every aspect of their lives (forcibly if need be) based on a self-proclaimed authority that has never been seen or heard? Or based on an authority that can never be verified? Yeah, I'd say it's a system that's been designed to be abused. The fact that it's a patriarchal system itself means there is a major segment (females) of the population that doesn't share in the power and privileges that the ruling class does. If that's not a world class scam then what is?

When doctors are guilty of malpractice or sexually abusing their patients, do we want to eliminate the practice of medicine?

Similarly, there are far MORE pedophiles in the teaching profession than there are in the catholic clergy. Shall we argue against education?

NOTE: I'm not excusing pedophile priests, btw: they should be subject to the same prosecution as the bum at the bus station who does the same thing. I"m just trying to make a point that the things people use as arguments against religion they wouldn't dream of using against other professions.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not all religions are partiarchal, however. Are you sure you're not confusing 'religion' with 'a particular religion I feel bitterness towards'? Carlin certainly did.

I was responding to your post regarding the Catholic Church. Which IS patriarchal, and therefore, IMO, inherently abusive to those not allowed to share in the power and privileges of that system. In this case, women.

The same would be true of any system where authority is not agreed upon between the parties. Be it patriarchal, matriarchal, or theocratic.

I feel no bitterness of the CC. I like to think I've escaped their clutches long ago. My attitude is guarded and suspicious in regards to the CC. As I am with ANY figure or institution that claims authority over me and my views without my consent. Now George Carlin IS bitter. I just quoted him because I thought it was funny, somewhat accurate and I didn't want to project an antagonistic tone.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
just for fun, let's take you statement and apply it to the medical profession...

When doctors are guilty of malpractice or sexually abusing their patients, do we want to eliminate the practice of medicine?

Similarly, there are far MORE pedophiles in the teaching profession than there are in the catholic clergy. Shall we argue against education?

NOTE: I'm not excusing pedophile priests, btw: they should be subject to the same prosecution as the bum at the bus station who does the same thing. I"m just trying to make a point that the things people use as arguments against religion they wouldn't dream of using against other professions.

Sorry that's not an analogous situation. In your example, or any professional area, there is an agreed upon trade of goods and services.

In exchange for those goods or services, you, at some point willingly accept your role and the doctor's (in this example, his authority in the art of medicine) at the onset of the relationship. The fact that you (or your child) might get bad treatment, good treatment, or subjected to abuse is one of the possible consequences. The situation is wholly contingent on your voluntary acquiescence to someone else's authority.

Historically, religious leaders have based their actions, and demanded your forced acquiescence, on an authority that isn't mutually agreed upon or that can be independently verified as valid.

There's a big difference between a transaction gone bad and an occupying/invading army showing up in the name of God to convert or kill me, or my civil rights restricted by a moral code that I don't recognize as valid, or someone flying a couple planes into skyscrapers to kill innocents (to use a contemporary example) in a pique of self-righteousness. All based on a self-appointed, self-proclaimed interpretation of a religious text that can't be confirmed. It's a fundamentally (no pun intended) corrupt system and appeals to the lowest instinct of humanity - the lust for power over other men.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
just for fun, let's take you statement and apply it to the medical profession...

I think that doesn't work with the inclusion of an "authority that has never been seen or heard" and "an authority that can never be verified."

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
19 pages later his girlfriend still thinks the world is 4000 years old. But by now things are way off-topic.

Actually, I think his girlfriend thinks Earth is now 4001 years old.

[el chupacabra]

I'm not exactly a spiritual person but there is some strange coincidences...


THE THIRD TRUMPET.........8:10-11
(from the bible)
8.10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Chernobyl: and the third part of the waters became Chernobyl; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

I inserted the word, didn't change it, from wormwood to chernobyl because thats the russian word for wormwood.

By the way the nuclear core when taken a cross section of it was in the shape of a star.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It's a fundamentally (no pun intended) corrupt system and appeals to the lowest instinct of humanity - the lust for power over other men.

Not like, say, Capitalism and its proven puritanical appeal.

Or Democracy, which seeks to impose the majority view -- right or wrong -- upon a minority. (see also Slavery, Womens' right to vote, racially biased sentencing, and state bonds that idiots keep voting YES to because God knows I don't pay enough tax.)

If you take just a little psychology you'll see that the roots of all human behavior appeal to the lowest instincts of humanity. The ideological war against religion is also an example. The Us vs. Them mentality is, what, an evolution?

It's another typical anti-theist hypocrisy: Religions do not inclusively accept certain people and certain paths to truth, therefore people who don't like religion will exclude religious people and their paths to truth.


wolfen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Not like, say, Capitalism and its proven puritanical appeal.

Or Democracy, which seeks to impose the majority view -- right or wrong -- upon a minority. (see also Slavery, Womens' right to vote, racially biased sentencing, and state bonds that idiots keep voting YES to because God knows I don't pay enough tax.)

If you take just a little psychology you'll see that the roots of all human behavior appeal to the lowest instincts of humanity. The ideological war against religion is also an example. The Us vs. Them mentality is, what, an evolution?

A relic, because the formerly out crowd (atheists, gays, etc) really did have to scrape their way up in the face of hostility from "them."

It's another typical anti-theist hypocrisy: Religions do not inclusively accept certain people and certain paths to truth, therefore people who don't like religion will exclude religious people and their paths to truth.


wolfen

Reciprocity, maybe?

I admit that my, "They started it," outline of history could be seen as an excuse. It's not, or I wouldn't have called it a "relic." It's an explanation, not a justification.

It's also pack mentality. People are literally affirmed by those who they view, for whatever reason, as comrades or friendly, and threatened by adversaries or those they view as hostiles. Another name for this is conformism. It's present in everyone to varying degrees.

If someone uses an empty insult on you (especially if it implies "style" - like backwards), they're probably trying to get you to conform. Just call them sheep and/or move on.

BlackGriffen

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Not like, say, Capitalism and its proven puritanical appeal.

Or Democracy, which seeks to impose the majority view -- right or wrong -- upon a minority. (see also Slavery, Womens' right to vote, racially biased sentencing, and state bonds that idiots keep voting YES to because God knows I don't pay enough tax.)

If you take just a little psychology you'll see that the roots of all human behavior appeal to the lowest instincts of humanity. The ideological war against religion is also an example. The Us vs. Them mentality is, what, an evolution?

It's another typical anti-theist hypocrisy: Religions do not inclusively accept certain people and certain paths to truth, therefore people who don't like religion will exclude religious people and their paths to truth.


wolfen

Again, that's not comparable. Participation in a democracy assumes a agreed upon system of authority. Our participation in the formation of the government, i.e., voting, taxes, etc., etc. means we've given a voluntary acquiescence to participate in the the system. Are you saying that's equal to The Inquisition showing up at your door to convert or kill you?

Majority rule isn't true in all cases either. You've heard of the Bill of Rights? No matter what the majority thinks there are certain rights that can't be denied. It protects us from the 'Tyranny of the Majority'.

Or maybe you're more comfortable with anyone claiming to have a conversation with a God (and thus the authority) to carry out whatever they deem necessary?

[wolfen]

Mr. Griffin,

Your statements are devoid of intellectual superiority. I commend you on presenting a clear statement of your respectable position.

It does reveal the kernel of my particular problem with the atheistic movement. And that is this:

The "We should all be moving on now, even though I'm not quite emotionally ready to move on" argument holds no persuasive value to me. Even when it is not stated so bluntly, the actions of its flag bearers cause me to turn in revulsion at the very nature they seem to disdain among the religious masses.

I've yet to see a large Atheist movement that is focused on bridging the differences between the two groups in a respectful peaceable manner. It is still a very combative and elitist ideology, overall.

Secondarily, the religious world is by and large looking to the future and adapting while nearly every atheist posting their views on this forum demonstrate an inability to leave The Crusades and The Inquisition behind.


Here's the marketing slogan for atheism commonly represented on MacNN:

"We want you to recognize we're superior, and we're going to be holier-than-thou disagreeable jerkoffs until you see just how beneficial we are to this pathetically superstitious human race."

Start the marketing program! Hire a marching band! Get those banners and brochures printed! We'll convert those ungrateful savages if it kills them!


wolfen