[CharlesS]

People have the right to believe any religion they want.

But they shouldn't go psycho about it, and start harassing people of other/no faiths and/or trying to throw science out the door because it conflicts with their interpretations of their religious stories, because that's just annoying.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by benign:
Open minds are rare, religion has
stifled and killed the creative function
of countless minds.

Superstition breeds more ignorance.

Their kind feeds off our children. instilling
fear in kids is their way of perverting
every generation into also being superstitious.
To be drones just like the rest of them.

It is worst than a drug, it's a disease.
If they still had power in society, all
who did not believe as they do would
be tortured and killed. Or has everyone
forgotten their history of misery.

Your poetry is really lame,
And that's the reason for this flame.
Go take your drivel, crap, and shame,
Back to the hole from whence you came.

[benign]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Your poetry is really lame,
And that's the reason for this flame.
Go take your drivel, crap, and shame,
Back to the hole from whence you came.

Good to see rhyming flames are not dead.
That juveniles like yourself keep it alive is
just divine.

Nails and cross - may crucify me
but your man made words will
never hurt or make me Wee Pee.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
Good to see rhyming flames are not dead.
That juveniles like yourself keep it alive is just divine.

Nails and cross - may crucify me
but your man made words will
never hurt or make me Wee Pee.

Wee Pee? Um, that's just a bit of a stretch. Your mask is slipping. Then again, your failure to appear in the Wicca thread despite your obsession with "religion" also speaks volumes.

But you speak of "man-made words". It is entirely possible that "my words" are man-made. We know, however, that "your words" are; in fact you seem to take it as a point of pride that they are. Given this, I don't understand why you try to use the term "man-made" as an insult to my own beliefs, when it's supposed to be a compliment for yours. Sounds to me like a double standard.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by benign:
Good to see rhyming flames are not dead.
That juveniles like yourself keep it alive is
just divine.

Nails and cross - may crucify me
but your man made words will
never hurt or make me Wee Pee.

Wee Pee? And I'm juvenile... heh.

The reason for the rhyming flame was because all your posts recently have been really bad poetry, so I thought I'd respond with a little bad poetry of my own. I was trying to be amusing, but I guess it's not worth it...

[benign]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Wee Pee? Um, that's just a bit of a stretch. Your mask is slipping. Then again, your failure to appear in the Wicca thread despite your obsession with "religion" also speaks volumes.

But you speak of "man-made words". It is entirely possible that "my words" are man-made. We know, however, that "your words" are; in fact you seem to take it as a point of pride that they are. Given this, I don't understand why you try to use the term "man-made" as an insult to my own beliefs, when it's supposed to be a compliment for yours. Sounds to me like a double standard.

"Wee-pee" - a juvenile stretch.

"Wicca thread" - alas I am not omnipresent.

"man-made" the only double standard
is that you have faith in your religious
texts were written by your
god or prophet, your savior etc...
when they were only "man-made"
lies dressed as divinely superstitious
nonsense.

I pride myself in making up my own ;)

[benign]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Wee Pee? And I'm juvenile... heh.

The reason for the rhyming flame was because all your posts recently have been really bad poetry, so I thought I'd respond with a little bad poetry of my own. I was trying to be amusing, but I guess it's not worth it...

All my posts even the religious ones
are very much tongue-in-cheek.

...I always guess it's worth it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
"Wee-pee" - a juvenile stretch.

So in response to being called juvenile, you act juvenile. This does not sound very productive.

"Wicca thread" - alas I am not omnipresent.

No, but given that the thread mentions Wicca -a religion you've claimed to have no respect for- right in the title, and in fact in the second word of the title, I'd have thought you wouldn't be able to resist it. Unless, of course, your beef isn't with Wicca, which is what I'm coming to suspect.

What I suspect is that you have managed to confuse "religion" with "a particular branch of Christianity towards which I feel bitter". You're not alone in that confusion by any stretch of the imagination. Are you sure you're not a teenager, by the way? My wife, who teaches foreign languages from grade 7-12, has been following your posts, and she says you remind her of several of her eighth-grade students. The parallels are shockingly similar.

"man-made" the only double standard is that you have faith in your religious texts were written by your god or prophet, your savior etc...
when they were only "man-made" lies dressed as divinely superstitious nonsense.

Something of which you have no proof whatsoever, therefore you can show no double-standard under any serious scrutiny.

I, however, can. You believe both our faiths to be manmade, yet from your perspective, "man-made" is an insult to my faith but a compliment to yours. This does not make sense.

[benign]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...So in response to being called juvenile, you act juvenile. This does not sound very productive...



...What I suspect is that you have managed to confuse "religion" with "a particular branch of Christianity towards which I feel bitter". You're not alone in that confusion by any stretch of the imagination...



...Are you sure you're not a teenager, by the way? My wife, who teaches foreign languages from grade 7-12, has been following your posts, and she says you remind her of several of her eighth-grade students. The parallels are shockingly similar...

I was trying to underline the fact
that rhyming poetry is juvenile...

Any man-made theory that leads
a man to 'jump/leap' for his understanding
of life to make sense is an idiot.
All denominations or types of man-made
stories that superstitious cretins believe in
while huddled together in the dark - that
tells of the mindset of a divine creator
is archaic nonsense.


When chatting with the religiously insane
I do used a terse form of rhetoric in
this forum, and as I have continuously
denounced you as a juvenile - come
man-child - when it comes to your faith
in superstitious stories to explain this
inexplicable moment we call life,
It is only natural for you to try a little
'eighth-grade' humor back at me.


Eighth-grade students and religious
followers, the parallels are shockingly
similar...


Your wife's also religious, i take it.
Well, fools will flock together...

[ghost_flash]

I believe man has been on earth for only thousands of years, and not before. The earth it would seem was just here waiting for someone to come along and **** it up.

;O)

Someone has to do it.

[benign]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I believe man has been on earth for only thousands of years, and not before. The earth it would seem was just here waiting for someone to come along and **** it up.

;O)

Someone has to do it.

Is that a sexual metaphor ?

Some can last a few thousand years,
others at least forty thousand...

Depends on your stamina, keep off
the religious drugs and you can go a
lot longer.

[deekay1]

blind faith (no empirical evidence) and superstition aren't the same as believing in something gathered by philosophical and empirical (scientific) evidence (as incomplete as it may be)!

:: thank you. we now return you to your regular program...::

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
I was trying to underline the fact that rhyming poetry is juvenile...

You don't do yourself much good, however, by stooping to the same level.

Any man-made theory that leads a man to 'jump/leap' for his understanding of life to make sense is an idiot.

And yours doesn't require a leap? I'm not so sure about that.

All denominations or types of man-made stories that superstitious cretins believe in while huddled together in the dark - that tells of the mindset of a divine creator is archaic nonsense.

And what of man-made stories which attribute godlike attributes onto a human, or groups of humans, or humanity in general? What makes your beliefs any more valid that the stories of Daedalus, or Gilgamesh, or Jesus for that matter?

When chatting with the religiously insane I do used a terse form of rhetoric in this forum...

You call this 'terse'? In that case I'd hate to see what you call wordy. I don't claim to be terse myself, but at least my posts fill up the space allotted for my comments. Yours, by contrast, seem to waste an awful lot of whitespace. You may notice that in my replies, I often reformat your comments, attempting to place linebreaks where they make actual sense for prose English. It's odd just how much shorter it looks once that is done.

It is only natural for you to try a little 'eighth-grade' humor back at me.

Actually, I'm not joking about this. We discussed this a while back, but I find your claims of being an adult increasingly difficult to believe. Your writing style pegs you as an eighth-grader who's been reading a little too much Anne Rice recently (nothing against Anne Rice; she's done some wonderful stuff -I particularly liked Memnoch the Devil- but there's such a thing as too much of a Good Thing).

Eighth-grade students and religious followers, the parallels are shockingly similar...

Your wife's also religious, i take it.
Well, fools will flock together...

She's a Unitarian, with fairly strong pagan leanings; even your faith is more similar to mine than hers is. That thought must gall you, I'm sure, but it's true. That's what I find so amusing. You'd love to paint me as being intolerant of religious beliefs other than my own, because that would fit your worldview. But the fact is, I'm everything you wish I wasn't. I don't brag about my faith, I don't try to say it's any better than yours, I don't consider it my duty to ridicule and debase you, I believe as strongly in the separation of church and state as anyone else. Believe it or not, I'm not even trying to convert you; I'm only trying to convince you that we're not all that different.

And yes, my wife does in fact see your kind of rhetoric all the time, mostly from eighth-grade students looking to piss off their parents. Most of them mellow out, not to become religious (though some do), but to stop being jerks about their beliefs. Either you failed to evolve to that state, or you're still that age. I find the latter much more believable, because someone as rational as you claim to be would have learned long ago that mindlessly debasing religion is pointless; there are plenty of more constructive things to do which get "the word" out more effectively.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by deekay1:
blind faith (no empirical evidence) and superstition aren't the same as believing in something gathered by philosophical and empirical (scientific) evidence (as incomplete as it may be)!

Is it? I wonder.

Do you trust those who gathered your data? You do realize that attempted fraud happens all the time in the scientific community; most of the time it is caught by peer review, but the slip-ups even in recent times have been interesting (consider the kinase cascade theory, for example). How do you know who in the scientific community to trust, and who not to trust? Or do you simply trust them all, and The System besides?

And when the data is incomplete, what is it that you use to fill in the holes? Surely you don't just ignore them. What do you do? Without empirical evidence, do you just start making stuff up to fill in the holes?

Unless you gather all your data and do all the experiments yourself, it is still faith in those who did so. Heck; even if you do this, it's still faith in your own abilities.

Of course, you might counter this with an argument that without some measure of faith, even if just in one's self, there can be no meaning. I would say exactly the same thing. My point is that eventually, even the staunchest empiricist has faith in something, and that faith is the great equalizer.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Is it? I wonder.

Do you trust those who gathered your data? You do realize that attempted fraud happens all the time in the scientific community; most of the time it is caught by peer review, but the slip-ups even in recent times have been interesting (consider the kinase cascade theory, for example). How do you know who in the scientific community to trust, and who not to trust? Or do you simply trust them all, and The System besides?

And when the data is incomplete, what is it that you use to fill in the holes? Surely you don't just ignore them. What do you do? Without empirical evidence, do you just start making stuff up to fill in the holes?

Unless you gather all your data and do all the experiments yourself, it is still faith in those who did so. Heck; even if you do this, it's still faith in your own abilities.

Of course, you might counter this with an argument that without some measure of faith, even if just in one's self, there can be no meaning. I would say exactly the same thing. My point is that eventually, even the staunchest empiricist has faith in something, and that faith is the great equalizer.

Peer review is a wonderul thing.

Faith in something that occurs again and again, is not the same thing as blind faith.

Believing that the sun will rise in the morning is not blind faith.

You seem to be playing semantic games.

[benign]

Man is the storyteller, the
shaman - a myth maker.
Always the storyteller has
ears to listen, if the right
words are said.

My belief is, that is all he is.
A ground zero of meaning.
No complexity, no hidden
motives.

This is not faith or belief
but sanity.

You like to piss in the wind
and it shows.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
Man is the storyteller, the shaman - a myth maker.

Indeed. Also a consummate recorder, the likes of which has not been seen before on this planet. The question is, who makes the myth, and who records the reality?

Always the storyteller has ears to listen, if the right words are said.

And if the storyteller is any good. Bad stories tend to fall away.

My belief is, that is all he is.

Not from what you've said before.

A ground zero of meaning. No complexity, no hidden motives.

Would that include yourself?

This is not faith or belief but sanity.

What is sanity, anyway? There are times in history when both you and I would have been considered quite insane. Seems to me as though it's a poor measure.

You like to piss in the wind and it shows.

Then kindly indulge me by explaining what the heck that metaphor was supposed to mean. You've gone completely over my lowly, superstitious head with your lofty speech about bodily fluids.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Millennium:


Do you trust those who gathered your data? You do realize that attempted fraud happens all the time in the scientific community...

Unless you gather all your data and do all the experiments yourself, it is still faith in those who did so.

three things which i seem to have to point out over and over again.

1) cross referencing. people using the same (culturally unbiased) methods to arrive at the same conclusions. even different "fields" of science supporting each other.

2) i use the same "methods" science uses, to make decisions on a daily basis. i would be VERY surprised if the sun rises in the west tommorow

3) religions ALWAYS reflect a cultural bias, which has been closely analyzed, studied and deconstructed for quite some time now.

Originally posted by Millennium:

My point is that eventually, even the staunchest empiricist has faith in something, and that faith is the great equalizer.

boy, i just don't see how that follows. having faith in something the same as blind faith??

[benign]

Originally posted by xenu:


You seem to be playing semantic games.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by deekay1:
blind faith (no empirical evidence) and superstition aren't the same as believing in something gathered by philosophical and empirical (scientific) evidence (as incomplete as it may be)!

:: thank you. we now return you to your regular program...::

However, there are those, including myself, who have had events of a spiritual and/or divine nature.

A person who is not ready to "see", WILL NOT "see". I've witnessed it time and time again.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by deekay1:
1) cross referencing. people using the same (culturally unbiased) methods to arrive at the same conclusions. even different "fields" of science supporting each other.

Culturally unbiased? In an age where people accuse 2+2=4 of being culturally biased, can anything be said to be otherwise?

And even if it is biased, does this necessarily make any difference?

2) i use the same "methods" science uses, to make decisions on a daily basis. i would be VERY surprised if the sun rises in the west tommorow

Surprising? Yes, it certainly would be (unless, of course, you lived on Venus).

In Las Vegas, if you go to any roulette table, you will find a light board at one end. This board tells the last few numbers (usually about 20) which have come up on the wheel.

Why does Vegas do this? Because when the first casino installed such a board, its roulette revenues went up over 30%. People saw data and tried to interpret and act on it. For some, it even worked. But in the end, the wheel always wins; we can predict likelihood, but not certainty, and when the data gets misrepresented (as the light board in a casino does) then everyone loses. Except, of course, for the house.

3) religions ALWAYS reflect a cultural bias, which has been closely analyzed, studied and deconstructed for quite some time now.

I repeat, even if there is a cultural bias -which may or may not actually be true- does this necessarily make any difference? Is calculus culturally-biased, given its origins in Europe? Some people would say so. I'd call that assertion ridiculous, but even if it were correct, would that make calculus any less valid?

boy, i just don't see how that follows. having faith in something the same as blind faith?

Because faith is by definition blind. At least, by your definition it is blind. And this is my point: everyone has to have some form of faith in something on some level, simply in order to operate. I put my faith in a deity, benign puts his in humanity, and who is to say which of us is right? Science is a good tool, and can answer many questions. It cannot, however, answer all of them; no single tool can.

This is my point: science and religion need not conflict, and the abuses a few truly evil people have subjected both science and religion to does not reflect at all on the concepts in general. Exclusivism, be it Falwell's exclusion of science of benign's exclusion of faith, does nobody any good; all benign does is repeat the same mistake that all other intolerant persons have made in the past.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
A person who is not ready to "see", WILL NOT "see".

circular argument

but on a certain level i have to agree with you. egyptians, for example, "saw" things quite differently (metaphorically and literally)

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Culturally unbiased? In an age where people accuse 2+2=4 of being culturally biased, can anything be said to be otherwise?

yeah, that's true. i was talking about the use of a certain "form" as a socio-cultural event, in that religions "do" something a certain way, that "universally" makes them "religions", while science does something else.

but i know about the problems that come with trying to define anything, because you always bring in some cultural/personal bias.

Originally posted by Millennium:
I repeat, even if there is a cultural bias - which may or may not actually be true- does this necessarily make any difference?

yes it does. it makes a difference in that it points to a form of "cultural relativism" (which, to me, stands in opposition to (a) "universal truth")

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because faith is by definition blind.

i don't think we are talking about the same things here. having "faith" in that when i jump off a diving board into a pool (because from everything that i KNOW this will happen), to me, isn't the same as having "faith" in, let's say "the easter bunny" simply because humans have the imagination that something like this exists.

Originally posted by Millennium:

This is my point: science and religion need not conflict...

oh, i agree, they are "essentially" quite different endeavours! (by now )

[benign]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
However, there are those, including myself, who have had events of a spiritual and/or divine nature.

A person who is not ready to "see", WILL NOT "see". I've witnessed it time and time again.

Keep your feet on the ground
and then try reaching for the
stars, superstitious cretins.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Do you think you're making any ground here whatsoever? What you are saying means nothing. It is gobleygook. You are reiterating the same rhetoric, with unsubstantiated claims.

Faith is believing in something you "know" in your heart and mind to be true, but can't prove, therefore by it's very nature you can't justify pushing a belief system on someone else - live and let live. Let people believe what they want, as long as it doesn't do any harm to others.

I was not trying to prove faith, you idiot.

Read the thread.

[wolfen]

PYRAMID SONG
I jumped in the river, what did I see?
Black-eyed angels swam with me
A moon full of stars and astral cars
All the things I used to see
All my lovers were there with me
All my past and futures
And we all went to heaven in a little row boat
There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt

I jumped into the river
Black-eyed angels swam with me
A moon full of stars and astral cars
And all the things I used to see
All my lovers were there with me
All my past and futures
And we all went to heaven in a little row boat
There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt

[deekay1]

SATELLITE
hush little baby don't cry like that
God's gonna buy you a cadillac
he's chosen you to do his will
you can spread the world in your coupe de ville

so jump in the river and learn to swim
God's gonna wash away all your sins
and if you still can't see the light
God's gonna buy you a satellite

look to the heavens and see it shine
heals the sick and leads the blind
tune it in and hear it say
it's counting down to judgement day

so jump in the river ...

hey satellite man your time has come
your words received by everyone
and should you fall, well that's ok
you love the ones that you betray

so jump in the river and learn to swim
God's gonna take away all your sins
and when at last you see the light
God's gonna buy you a satellite

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by benign:
Keep your feet on the ground
and then try reaching for the
stars, superstitious cretins.

Would you stop that? Taking any sentence and adding a line break after every fixed number of words does not make poetry.

Just express your thoughts normally, in plain old sentences.

[Insecure bone]

This has got to be the biggest post ever.

[benign]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Because faith is by definition blind. At least, by your definition it is blind. And this is my point: everyone has to have some form of faith in something on some level, simply in order to operate. I put my faith in a deity, benign puts his in humanity, and who is to say which of us is right? Science is a good tool, and can answer many questions. It cannot, however, answer all of them; no single tool can.

This is my point: science and religion need not conflict, and the abuses a few truly evil people have subjected both science and religion to does not reflect at all on the concepts in general. Exclusivism, be it Falwell's exclusion of science of benign's exclusion of faith, does nobody any good; all benign does is repeat the same mistake that all other intolerant persons have made in the past.

Religion is a virus that has only
entrenched it's prisoners in superstition
and dogma, used by some
to control and wield power.
For human society it has given nothing,
to the individual a license to be
megalomaniacal.

Religious faith is a leap into the
darkness of our archaic past, a
real negation of all we as a race
have achieved.

Insidious ideas like 'blind faith' is to
believe what you do not see, the
reward for faith is to see what you
believe. It betrays all reason.

Out of chaos man stumbles to
find answers and to befriend the
darkness that surrounds him.
Build archaic stories to empower
himself and give meaning to the
unknown in his image.

But it is time to venture out into
the unknown and explore the
world and himself without metaphysical
question tied up in neat anthropomorphic
boxes.

This is no mistake, for it takes
real courage to walk upright into the
light of the unknown unadded.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by benign:
Religion is a virus that has only
entrenched it's prisoners in superstition
and dogma, used by some
to control and wield power.
For human society it has given nothing,
to the individual a license to be
megalomaniacal.

Religious faith is a leap into the
darkness of our archaic past, a
real negation of all we as a race
have achieved.

Insidious ideas like 'blind faith' is to
believe what you do not see, the
reward for faith is to see what you
believe. It betrays all reason.

Out of chaos man stumbles to
find answers and to befriend the
darkness that surrounds him.
Build archaic stories to empower
himself and give meaning to the
unknown in his image.

But it is time to venture out into
the unknown and explore the
world and himself without metaphysical
question tied up in neat anthropomorphic
boxes.

This is no mistake, for it takes
real courage to walk upright into the
light of the unknown unadded.

Religion is not a virus. If you are going to argue against religion then try avoiding metaphors. Again, you sound like a preacher or a car salesman.

I see you had nothing to say about my last comment. What's up with that?

[wolfen]

Every idea is a virus.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by wolfen:
Every idea is a virus.

Virus, meme, whatever... They are good basic models but they are metaphors and hence can't be used to argue logically.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by benign:
Religion is a virus that has only
entrenched it's prisoners in superstition
and dogma, used by some
to control and wield power.
For human society it has given nothing,
to the individual a license to be
megalomaniacal.

Religious faith is a leap into the
darkness of our archaic past, a
real negation of all we as a race
have achieved.

Insidious ideas like 'blind faith' is to
believe what you do not see, the
reward for faith is to see what you
believe. It betrays all reason.

Out of chaos man stumbles to
find answers and to befriend the
darkness that surrounds him.
Build archaic stories to empower
himself and give meaning to the
unknown in his image.

But it is time to venture out into
the unknown and explore the
world and himself without metaphysical
question tied up in neat anthropomorphic
boxes.

This is no mistake, for it takes
real courage to walk upright into the
light of the unknown unadded.

What about those who have religious beliefs yet do not participate in any religious institution?

Everything you have to say - such a cliche. Said over and over again, quite tiring actually.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
[B]Religion is a virus that has only entrenched it's prisoners in superstition and dogma, used by some to control and wield power.
For human society it has given nothing, to the individual a license to be megalomaniacal.

Nothing, you say? What was the first book printed on Gutenberg's press?

Religious faith is a leap into the darkness of our archaic past, a real negation of all we as a race have achieved.

"A negation of all we as a race have achieved"? I'd love to hear you explain this one. What exactly has it negated, and how?

Insidious ideas like 'blind faith' is to believe what you do not see, the reward for faith is to see what you believe. It betrays all reason.

The reward for seeking truth is finding it? Is the same not true of science?

But it is time to venture out into the unknown and explore the world and himself without metaphysical question tied up in neat anthropomorphic boxes.

But those "metaphysical questions" have yet to be answered. Would you siggest that humanity abandon one field of knowledge for another? That sounds a lot like what some religious fundamentalists have said in the past, only the other way around.

This is no mistake, for it takes real courage to walk upright into the light of the unknown unadded.

"Unadded"? Assuming you mean "unaided", that can be very true. At the same time, there's only one letter's worth of difference between "guts" and "nuts".

[benign]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...Blah blah

We both beg to differ, The religious
will always be empowered by their
anthropomorphic superstitious
metaphysics - if its monotheism,
polytheism or pantheism. All are
man-made stories and therefore
erroneous, and hold no meaning
outside of themselves.

That modern man has trouble
in taking this onboard is a sure
sign that superstitious humans are
all pathological megalomaniacs.

That all megalomaniacal stories
are always different can only deepen
the hole in which your faiths reside.

But rest assured you will all sleep
in the happy hunting ground of.
forgetfulness very soon.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
All are
man-made stories and therefore
erroneous, and hold no meaning
outside of themselves.

But YOUR man-made story is immune to being erroneous, right? interesting. Essentially your'e saying:

Nothing you can conceive of can be correct because you used your brain to do it.
I know that's true because I used my brain to conceive of how all things conceived by the human brain are erroneous.

I thought you had a high IQ? how does this logically follow?

Originally posted by benign:
But rest assured you will all sleep
in the happy hunting ground of.
forgetfulness very soon.

You're not coming with us?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
All are man-made stories and therefore erroneous, and hold no meaning outside of themselves.

But your beliefs are also man-made; doesn't this invelidate them too

That's been my whole point in discussing this with you: you and I aren't all that different. Take your perspective out to its logical conclusion, and we are both wrong.

That modern man has trouble in taking this onboard is a sure sign that superstitious humans are all pathological megalomaniacs.

I still say you don't know the meaning of the term "megalomaniac". We had this discussion once before, and you posted the classic dictionary.com definition, which is correct except that it forgets to note that to be megalomania, the delusions must focus on the self. Most religions don't focus on the self as a higher power, so how can they be megalomaniacal?

On the other hand, your beliefs do seem to focus on the self as a higher power. I wonder if you're calling the wrong person a megalomaniac.

That all megalomaniacal stories are always different can only deepen the hole in which your faiths reside.

Or maybe it comes from the fact that all people are individuals. Your own megalomaniacal stories are different -sometimes subtly, sometimes not- from those of any other person I've encountered, even other secular humanists.

That's what's so funny about you. Every argument you've made, if true, invalidates your own faith just as much as any other, yet you cling to your faith just as desperately as you say we cling to ours.

But rest assured you will all sleep in the happy hunting ground of. forgetfulness very soon.

As will you, by your own beliefs.

[benign]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
But YOUR man-made story is immune to being erroneous, right? interesting. Essentially your'e saying:

Nothing you can conceive of can be correct because you used your brain to do it.
I know that's true because I used my brain to conceive of how all things conceived by the human brain are erroneous...

:)

My empirical observations about the
meaning of life are man made - they
do not put any blind faith in any man
made story to explain life or give me
a one on one communication with
a creator of the universe or an afterlife
with him and all those of that particular
faith as well.

Your superstitious texts are divinely inspired
and unquestionable truths and as you believe,
not just man-made stories - well thats your
megalomaniacal story anyway.

You instill your own image to be the
image of the creator. A creator of an
unimaginably large universe dramatically
shows the scale of your delusion.

[benign]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But your beliefs are also man-made; doesn't this invelidate them too...


...Or maybe it comes from the fact that all people are individuals. Your own megalomaniacal stories are different -sometimes subtly, sometimes not- from those of any other person I've encountered, even other secular humanists...

I don't make up stories just expose
erroneous archaic superstitious lies.

The story making business is all about
power, empowering the weak minded
with stories that make them immortal,
feel cherished and act like righteous fools.

Believing you have all the answers is why
you are all megalomaniacal.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
My empirical observations about the
meaning of life are man made - they
do not put any blind faith in any man
made story to explain life or give me
a one on one communication with
a creator of the universe or an afterlife
with him and all those of that particular
faith as well.

Your superstitious texts are divinely inspired
and unquestionable truths and as you believe,
not just man-made stories - well thats your
megalomaniacal story anyway.

You instill your own image to be the
image of the creator. A creator of an
unimaginably large universe dramatically
shows the scale of your delusion.

you have empirical observations of the meaning of life? Empirical observations of the nonexistence of a supreme being?

please demonstrate that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
Believing you have all the answers is why
you are all megalomaniacal.

I'll wait a few moments until the irony sets in.

[Nicko]

Your girlfriend is a moron. (in case it hasn't been said already)

[benign]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you have empirical observations of the meaning of life? Empirical observations of the nonexistence of a supreme being?

please demonstrate that.

Like your ability to draw, your knowledge
of man and his desire for empowerment
is that of a layman.

The midwest deserves you and you it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by benign:
Like your ability to draw, your knowledge
of man and his desire for empowerment
is that of a layman.

The midwest deserves you and you it.

Nice words. Try actually answering his question. I've noticed that you have a remarkable knack for avoiding questions for which I suspect you have no answer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
Like your ability to draw, your knowledge
of man and his desire for empowerment
is that of a layman.

The midwest deserves you and you it.

well, that gives me warm fuzzies but doesn't answer my question:

you made the claim: back it up. I'm curious in what form empirical observations can explain the meaning of life and disprove a supreme being.

[benign]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Nice words. Try actually answering his question. I've noticed that you have a remarkable knack for avoiding questions for which I suspect you have no answer.

Religion is a circular argument, a tautology
an unsolvable paradox of man-made
language. A simple tool used to empower
the weak.

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

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benign:
Religion is a circular argument, a tautology
an unsolvable paradox of man-made
language. A simple tool used to empower
the weak.

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

that is not an empirical observation:
that is a prejudicial conclusion based on a preconceived notion that religion is false, therefore it is a circular argument.

perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word "empirical"?

I'll help you:

empirical



Empiric \Em*pir"ic\, Empirical \Em*pir"ic*al\, a. 1. Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience; depending upon the observation of phenomena; versed in experiments.

In philosophical language, the term empirical means simply what belongs to or is the product of experience or observation. --Sir W. Hamilton.

The village carpenter . . . lays out his work by empirical rules learnt in his apprenticeship. --H. Spencer.

2. Depending upon experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and theory; -- said especially of medical practice, remedies, etc.; wanting in science and deep insight; as, empiric skill, remedies.

all you've done is shown that your opinion of what is truth is the yardstick you use to prove that opinion. This is sophistry, and rhetoric, but it is definitely not empirical observation.

again...what empirical observations can you demonstrate to support your conclusions?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
Religion is a circular argument, a tautology
an unsolvable paradox of man-made
language. A simple tool used to empower
the weak.

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

Yup, you've proven that you're a moron. Answer questions that you quote, don't just post enjambed nonsense.

[benign]

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let�s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he�s begun to take a little charge of; he�s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he�s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on.

Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we�ll come and we�ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who�s a tool maker, doesn�t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert�he even manages to live in New York for heaven�s sake�and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn�t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has_ those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says �I�ll have it off him�.

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.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, �This is an interesting world I find myself in�an interesting hole I find myself in�fits me rather neatly, doesn�t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!� This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it�s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything�s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.


Douglas Adams

Should be a law against long quotes...