Religion - which one is "the best"?

motokid wrote:

Or - one could look at it this way:

If there is an "after-life" the significance of what we do here on Earth is in fact diminished into nothing.

75-ish years is nothing when compared to eternity.

That is exactly what i have been saying.

Quote :

Suggesting that what we do in this life has ramifications for the rest of eternity is like saying that getting a speeding ticket for 5 mph over the speed limit should doom you to a life-in-prison jail sentence because it's obvious your breaking the law, regardless of the relative insignificance of it, is a definition of who you are.

I did not originate these 'suggestions'. Humans for thousands of years have been doing it. But your analogy is nearly correct, except for the level of punishment for the crime. If you have bad deeds, many people believe that there will be negative consequences.. you will not reincarnate into a higher consciousness, or you will face god with unresolved sin, or some kind of bad thing.

motokid wrote:

Since "religion" is a man-made concept, and in general it's used to control people, the thought that what you do in this life will have a direct impact on your "eternity" is quite obviously a method of control through fear.

I will agree that religions are used, & have been used for manipulation, among other things. That does not negate any truth that might be in them. Maybe all have some truth.. maybe one has THE Truth. Maybe none are true. But IF there is a 'Truth', (& it seems to me logically, that there is) then whatever that truth is might have consequences. You may not like it. You may not believe it. But IF it is THE Truth, what we think does not matter. Truth is true regardless of our opinions.

Quote :

If you fear that something you might want to do will hurt your possible eternity you more than likely won't do that something.

Exactly.

Quote :

It's a tool for control.

Or it might be THE Truth. Or a little of both. Parents are constantly manipulating the truth to modify behavior in their children. "Don't touch that stove, it's hot". 'Hold my had crossing the street, or you might get run over'. They also mix in their own biases & prejudices, but that does not make everything they said a lie. Just because there are dishonest people in a belief system who manipulate should not cause us to dismiss everything. There might be a kernel of truth in there. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Quote :

It's using fear of a possible or potential un-ending future to guide people through the present.

Again - the reality of that would speak volumes about how insanely un-loving and vicious the purveyor of that system actually is.

That is your judgment or opinion. I don't know. IF there is a god of wrath, which is what you are ridiculing i assume, then the misperception is yours, & you will face the consequences. IF not, then no problem. A seeker of Truth does not care about judgments like this. IF it is TRUE, then that is all that matters. You can evade the truth, disbelieve it, or mock it, but IF it is True, it is not shaken & remains True.

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Ayn Rand

"He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still”
Lao Tzu

What is 'Truth'?
Pontias Pilate

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Albert Einstein

And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
Jesus

There is a true Buddha in family life; there is a real Tao in everyday activities. If people can be sincere and harmonious, promoting communication with a cheerful demeanor and friendly words, that is much better than formal meditation practice.
Lao Tzu

I could tell that my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio.
Rodney Dangerfield

+1 He has a unique view on religion doesn't he... LOL

He is definitely very funny. I think he could argue the atheist perspective better than most...and a few other hot topics as well.
I've since, been searching his stuff...he's pretty good, for my humour.

I guess in this thread, is as good a time as any, to ask...

When is humour funny...and when is it an insult?

For me, I temper everything with humour...I hope. But alotta the best humour, argues common sense, everyday issues.

If the religious sects ever want to have rational discussions with atheist sects, they need to deal with the humour of it, as well as the deeper essence.
Either that, or they are not willing to figure out anyone who lives different than them....and that really comes down to an individuals thoughts and efforts.

I guess my advice is, if you are easily insulted....get a fn sense of humour already!...if not, good luck with that.

I didn't think he was that funny, but i don't go for the modern humor, which seems to rely on streams of profanity to reach the effect. His basic theme was, 'religious people are stupid'. He creates a strawman christian theology, which no one i know of believes, then makes fun of it. I would make fun of anyone who believed that, too. But what is funny about it? The panda shtick was mildly entertaining, but there still wasn't much there.. just mocking & ridicule.

But that's just my taste in humor. Others may find this hilarious. Different strokes.

“Q: What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
A: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.”
Groucho Marx

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin

“In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!”
Dave Barry

rydnseek wrote:

I didn't think he was that funny, but i don't go for the modern humor, which seems to rely on streams of profanity to reach the effect. His basic theme was, 'religious people are stupid'. He creates a strawman christian theology, which no one i know of believes, then makes fun of it.

That's a pretty common reaction among people who have made a religion out of their antipathy towards religion. I think that kind of "humour" appeals to them because it provides them with some self assurance that they must be right, aren't they? Sort of the same thing as Rick Mercer and a few other Canadian comedians who get their laughs by setting up how dumb and stupid Americans are for their audiences - many Canadians have a desperate need to be assured Canada and Canadians are much better, smarter, advanced, etc than the US and Americans.

Insecure people need to believe they stand on higher ground than others. Which is why you will find threads like this well populated with people ridiculing religion and the religious, but little or nothing from religious people ridiculing athiests and agnostics.

As for modern humour, none of these guys could hold a candle to true greats like Red Skelton, or Harvey Corman and Tim Conway, etc. And they managed to have people pissing their pants with laughter without attacking anyone or uttering a single obscenity.

Over on ADVrider, an interesting thread where MaddBritt (a long time well known hard charging partier there), found Christianity in midlife on a ride through the Himalayas and India. Or, as somebody else put it, as an avowed athiest who used to mock religion, he found the seeds of his Christianity on a motorcycle trip through the birthplaces of Hinduism and Buddhism.

A ride report of another kind - my journey continues

Jäger wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

I didn't think he was that funny, but i don't go for the modern humor, which seems to rely on streams of profanity to reach the effect. His basic theme was, 'religious people are stupid'. He creates a strawman christian theology, which no one i know of believes, then makes fun of it.

That's a pretty common reaction among people who have made a religion out of their antipathy towards religion. I think that kind of "humour" appeals to them because it provides them with some self assurance that they must be right, aren't they? Sort of the same thing as Rick Mercer and a few other Canadian comedians who get their laughs by setting up how dumb and stupid Americans are for their audiences - many Canadians have a desperate need to be assured Canada and Canadians are much better, smarter, advanced, etc than the US and Americans.

Insecure people need to believe they stand on higher ground than others. Which is why you will find threads like this well populated with people ridiculing religion and the religious, but little or nothing from religious people ridiculing athiests and agnostics.

As for modern humour, none of these guys could hold a candle to true greats like Red Skelton, or Harvey Corman and Tim Conway, etc. And they managed to have people pissing their pants with laughter without attacking anyone or uttering a single obscenity.

Over on ADVrider, an interesting thread where MaddBritt (a long time well known hard charging partier there), found Christianity in midlife on a ride through the Himalayas and India. Or, as somebody else put it, as an avowed athiest who used to mock religion, he found the seeds of his Christianity on a motorcycle trip through the birthplaces of Hinduism and Buddhism.

A ride report of another kind - my journey continues

And I would say you are about %99 correct...as well as say that Jim Jeffries is funny...primarily, I suppose, because he sticks to what he's good at...whatever, sum of that, it happens to be.

mucker wrote:

And I would say you are about %99 correct...as well as say that Jim Jeffries is funny...primarily, I suppose, because he sticks to what he's good at...whatever, sum of that, it happens to be.

Phhhtph...

Jager is far from 99% right. Although he's typically 99% condescending.

Ever heard the phrase: "holier than thou"

George Carlin.

motokid wrote:

mucker wrote:

And I would say you are about %99 correct...as well as say that Jim Jeffries is funny...primarily, I suppose, because he sticks to what he's good at...whatever, sum of that, it happens to be.

Phhhtph...

Jager is far from 99% right. Although he's typically 99% condescending.

Ever heard the phrase: "holier than thou"

I don't think you'll find a post from me here or elsewhere advocating either the belief there is a God, or dismissing the idea that a God exists.

We do have folks like you who will go to great lengths to attack both religion and those with religious faith. It's your religion, ridiculing religion and those with belief. It leaves one wondering why doing that is so important to you.

Do I kind that kind of intolerant arrogance of other's religious faith contemptible? Why, yes I do.

George Carlin. I can see why he'd be a person you'd admire. Not even talented enough to survive his first term of enlistment in the military as a radar technician, discharged for incompetence. Drug and alcohol addict. Gained fame through using obscenties where nobody else did, his life's work being a negative view of everything around him.

Now that's the kind of guy somebody like you can admire and get your inspiration from.

Hey, should a religious convict be treated any less than a person trying to verify sasquatch...the lockness monster. How do you separate your legitimacy from these beliefs...is it the oldest evidence that's more reliable or the most popular evidence? Or do some people only require evidence, when it suites them? So should I require evidence for every subject...except when god is the topic?...because he works without evidence somehow?...I guess being brainwashed from a child has a huge impact...how could it not?

If a presidential candidate said he believed extra terrestrial, intelligent, life was certainly possible...even probable(without evidence)...should he be considered as worthy as someone who believes/promotes in god, without evidence....at least measureable evidence on both parts?

One thing god is perfect at...is staying out of the picture. The rest is too old to verify or conveniently absent...or both.

To say so much in the start of the bible...only to be so perfectly silent, and demanding for eternity, afterwards...seems kinda convenient...for a scam.

Good lessons about life are invaluable...even if they come from Santa Clause. That doesn't make Santa Clause real...as accepted by MOST people.

If a candidate swore they believed in Santa Clause...no matter how well intentioned...should never get a rational persons vote.

Yet, believers wonder why their competence is questioned, or should even be a factor in how they make their decisions..as compared to an athiest...or anyone for that matter.

I grew up calling that a cult...till I realized I was in one. I feel like one of the lucky ones.

Have faith in yourself...in humans....in nature, let the Santa Clause stories be useful...just not the truth.




I

Jäger wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

I didn't think he was that funny, but i don't go for the modern humor, which seems to rely on streams of profanity to reach the effect. His basic theme was, 'religious people are stupid'. He creates a strawman christian theology, which no one i know of believes, then makes fun of it.

That's a pretty common reaction among people who have made a religion out of their antipathy towards religion. I think that kind of "humour" appeals to them because it provides them with some self assurance that they must be right, aren't they? Sort of the same thing as Rick Mercer and a few other Canadian comedians who get their laughs by setting up how dumb and stupid Americans are for their audiences - many Canadians have a desperate need to be assured Canada and Canadians are much better, smarter, advanced, etc than the US and Americans.

Insecure people need to believe they stand on higher ground than others. Which is why you will find threads like this well populated with people ridiculing religion and the religious, but little or nothing from religious people ridiculing athiests and agnostics.

As for modern humour, none of these guys could hold a candle to true greats like Red Skelton, or Harvey Corman and Tim Conway, etc. And they managed to have people pissing their pants with laughter without attacking anyone or uttering a single obscenity.

Over on ADVrider, an interesting thread where MaddBritt (a long time well known hard charging partier there), found Christianity in midlife on a ride through the Himalayas and India. Or, as somebody else put it, as an avowed athiest who used to mock religion, he found the seeds of his Christianity on a motorcycle trip through the birthplaces of Hinduism and Buddhism.

A ride report of another kind - my journey continues

I read the thread about maddbrit.. very interesting. I always find other people's philosophical journeys to be fascinating & enlightening. ..and i have always been mystified by the hostility & ridicule that many throw at religion.. specifically, christian religion. Why no jokes about lau tzu? Budda? Muhammad? Well, i do understand why the comedians don't touch islam.. they don't want some jihadist killing them, whereas some peaceful christian will let them mock without attacking them with a scimitar.

mucker wrote:

Hey, should a religious convict be treated any less than a person trying to verify sasquatch...the lockness monster. How do you separate your legitimacy from these beliefs...is it the oldest evidence that's more reliable or the most popular evidence? Or do some people only require evidence, when it suites them? So should I require evidence for every subject...except when god is the topic?...because he works without evidence somehow?...I guess being brainwashed from a child has a huge impact...how could it not?

If a presidential candidate said he believed extra terrestrial, intelligent, life was certainly possible...even probable(without evidence)...should he be considered as worthy as someone who believes/promotes in god, without evidence....at least measureable evidence on both parts?

One thing god is perfect at...is staying out of the picture. The rest is too old to verify or conveniently absent...or both.

To say so much in the start of the bible...only to be so perfectly silent, and demanding for eternity, afterwards...seems kinda convenient...for a scam.

Good lessons about life are invaluable...even if they come from Santa Clause. That doesn't make Santa Clause real...as accepted by MOST people.

If a candidate swore they believed in Santa Clause...no matter how well intentioned...should never get a rational persons vote.

Yet, believers wonder why their competence is questioned, or should even be a factor in how they make their decisions..as compared to an athiest...or anyone for that matter.

I grew up calling that a cult...till I realized I was in one. I feel like one of the lucky ones.

Have faith in yourself...in humans....in nature, let the Santa Clause stories be useful...just not the truth.

There is a pretty big difference, imo. For one, you have personal testimonies of people like Maddbrit mentioned earlier.. and not just a few claiming to have seen sasquatch, but quite a few more. If a candidate claimed to believe in santa claus, most would consider him a loon, whereas being a theist is not off the wall, except to a minority who disbelieve.. and they don't really consider a theist a loon, but just want to make a philosophical argument.

A case could be made, logically, that the few who disbelieve are the ones who are out of touch & off the wall, since they don't seem to be able to grasp something that the great majority of humans seem to get. I'm not arguing that.. i am interested in others' philosophical views & i prefer a thoughtful skeptic in conversation. But to lump all theistic views in the same category as the lochness monster & santa claus is not a reasonable position, because it dismisses the experiences of millions of people who claim otherwise.

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Heywood Broun

“Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love.”
Lao Tzu

The person lives most beautifully who does not reflect upon existence.
Friedrich Neitzsche

rydnseek wrote:

Jäger wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

I didn't think he was that funny, but i don't go for the modern humor, which seems to rely on streams of profanity to reach the effect. His basic theme was, 'religious people are stupid'. He creates a strawman christian theology, which no one i know of believes, then makes fun of it.

That's a pretty common reaction among people who have made a religion out of their antipathy towards religion. I think that kind of "humour" appeals to them because it provides them with some self assurance that they must be right, aren't they? Sort of the same thing as Rick Mercer and a few other Canadian comedians who get their laughs by setting up how dumb and stupid Americans are for their audiences - many Canadians have a desperate need to be assured Canada and Canadians are much better, smarter, advanced, etc than the US and Americans.

Insecure people need to believe they stand on higher ground than others. Which is why you will find threads like this well populated with people ridiculing religion and the religious, but little or nothing from religious people ridiculing athiests and agnostics.

As for modern humour, none of these guys could hold a candle to true greats like Red Skelton, or Harvey Corman and Tim Conway, etc. And they managed to have people pissing their pants with laughter without attacking anyone or uttering a single obscenity.

Over on ADVrider, an interesting thread where MaddBritt (a long time well known hard charging partier there), found Christianity in midlife on a ride through the Himalayas and India. Or, as somebody else put it, as an avowed athiest who used to mock religion, he found the seeds of his Christianity on a motorcycle trip through the birthplaces of Hinduism and Buddhism.

A ride report of another kind - my journey continues

I read the thread about maddbrit.. very interesting. I always find other people's philosophical journeys to be fascinating & enlightening. ..and i have always been mystified by the hostility & ridicule that many throw at religion.. specifically, christian religion. Why no jokes about lau tzu? Budda? Muhammad? Well, i do understand why the comedians don't touch islam.. they don't want some jihadist killing them, whereas some peaceful christian will let them mock without attacking them with a scimitar.

mucker wrote:

Hey, should a religious convict be treated any less than a person trying to verify sasquatch...the lockness monster. How do you separate your legitimacy from these beliefs...is it the oldest evidence that's more reliable or the most popular evidence? Or do some people only require evidence, when it suites them? So should I require evidence for every subject...except when god is the topic?...because he works without evidence somehow?...I guess being brainwashed from a child has a huge impact...how could it not?

If a presidential candidate said he believed extra terrestrial, intelligent, life was certainly possible...even probable(without evidence)...should he be considered as worthy as someone who believes/promotes in god, without evidence....at least measureable evidence on both parts?

One thing god is perfect at...is staying out of the picture. The rest is too old to verify or conveniently absent...or both.

To say so much in the start of the bible...only to be so perfectly silent, and demanding for eternity, afterwards...seems kinda convenient...for a scam.

Good lessons about life are invaluable...even if they come from Santa Clause. That doesn't make Santa Clause real...as accepted by MOST people.

If a candidate swore they believed in Santa Clause...no matter how well intentioned...should never get a rational persons vote.

Yet, believers wonder why their competence is questioned, or should even be a factor in how they make their decisions..as compared to an athiest...or anyone for that matter.

I grew up calling that a cult...till I realized I was in one. I feel like one of the lucky ones.

Have faith in yourself...in humans....in nature, let the Santa Clause stories be useful...just not the truth.

There is a pretty big difference, imo. For one, you have personal testimonies of people like Maddbrit mentioned earlier.. and not just a few claiming to have seen sasquatch, but quite a few more. If a candidate claimed to believe in santa claus, most would consider him a loon, whereas being a theist is not off the wall, except to a minority who disbelieve.. and they don't really consider a theist a loon, but just want to make a philosophical argument.

A case could be made, logically, that the few who disbelieve are the ones who are out of touch & off the wall, since they don't seem to be able to grasp something that the great majority of humans seem to get. I'm not arguing that.. i am interested in others' philosophical views & i prefer a thoughtful skeptic in conversation. But to lump all theistic views in the same category as the lochness monster & santa claus is not a reasonable position, because it dismisses the experiences of millions of people who claim otherwise.

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Heywood Broun

“Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love.”
Lao Tzu

The person lives most beautifully who does not reflect upon existence.
Friedrich Neitzsche

I would hope you, would understand that I do not command the english language, as well, as I would hope to.As it is my only functional language, I try to make up for lost schoolin. So I just try to work with what I have.
Usually that means using extremes, to describe a middle.
You are corrrect to say that my expressions are in the minority for north america.Which could been seen as an excuse for, "athiests", I guess, to be on a defensive posture...considering they live as a minority, in their community.
But I do feel what is true is true....my brain has concluded that...and that's speaking as a confirmed catholic, from a respectable working class community...that's were i began learning to be a good person...I still want to be the best person I can be...I still got problems...I still want to make it work.

It's just that my brain cannot accept that jesus is the son of god...to say the least.

If there are no entities, such as gods...then we better well figure out how the story goes without them...cause the truth is the only story I crave and care to make.

And i do appreciate that you seem to have more patience and input on the subject than most...even if we do disagree on some major points.

Bullying, name calling, ridiculing, kickin him when he's down...that just avoids the better discussions. The tough discussions.
Some people feel they don't have to justify what they are doing and why. They justify what they do poorly with attacking the obvious, vulnerable, weaknesses of their foe. This is how we continue to argue...by avoiding the argument...and defending ourselves, instead of the truth.

I don't believe any healthy human wishes to do poorly.
Sometimes it takes a hard lesson to do better. I can do better...as I feel you would too, if givin the chance/choice.

I wish you well.

So I assume everybody knows Whitney Houston is dead now right?

All the tributes and what-not have people talking about how Whitney is now up in Heaven with Jesus and God and singing her heart out with the Angels.

Those left here on Earth are to take comfort that she's now with the Lord and in a better place.





That's what religion is about. It's an explanation and a coping mechanism for dealing with traumatic, sad, and overly-realistic things that most people would just rather not have to think about too much.

Death.

Dealing with death.

There has to be something after we die to help those left behind deal with the loss.

Religion provides the answer to the biggest unknown that's plagued man for all eternity.
It provides "us" with immortality. It provides "us" with the answer to the unanswerable.

Just because billions of people cling to some concept of a deity that can provide everlasting life and everlasting love in some sky-garden doesn't mean those that don't believe are in some way less intelligent or ignorant or incapable of grasping complex trains of thought.

I think it's funny to hear people complain of "the relentless attacks on religion".

For thousands of years religion has attacked those that don't believe. Entire cultures have been destroyed by the religious. People were persecuted, imprisoned, and executed simply because they refused to accept somebody else's system of beliefs.

There is still a highly pervasive push by religion today to "spread the word" and bring those who don't believe, or bring those that believe the wrong thing, into the fold.

Sure Christianity gets hit hard in America. It's the king of the hill. It's the big dog. It's the over-whelming majority religion of the country.
It's going to get made fun of a lot. Especially when you've got the Catholic Church doing the crazy crap it's done for the past 100 years.

The easy route in life is to believe there's a god. The easy route is to cling to some mythology that there is an answer. The easy route is to have blind faith and accept that sooner or later you will get all the answers.

Those who chose to go against the grain, and stand up for their right to have a dissenting ideology/philosophy on something that huge within humanity, those are the people with courage and conviction. Those are the people who think for themselves and truly seek out knowledge and reason and critical thinking.

Religion is a safety blanket. It's a five point harness seat belt and a gigantic metal cage of protection around you from the world.

To reject religion is to climb onto your motorcycle and take on reality is a much different, and much freer way.

mucker wrote:

I would hope you, would understand that I do not command the english language, as well, as I would hope to.As it is my only functional language, I try to make up for lost schoolin. So I just try to work with what I have.
Usually that means using extremes, to describe a middle.
You are corrrect to say that my expressions are in the minority for north america.Which could been seen as an excuse for, "athiests", I guess, to be on a defensive posture...considering they live as a minority, in their community.
But I do feel what is true is true....my brain has concluded that...and that's speaking as a confirmed catholic, from a respectable working class community...that's were i began learning to be a good person...I still want to be the best person I can be...I still got problems...I still want to make it work.

Your english is quite good.. better than my french, i am sure! I'm not bashing atheists.. i'm responding to atheist arguments, but i hope in a more reasonable manner, & not to insult.

And of course, Truth is not decided by majority rule. The majority can be quite wrong, & Truth will not care, & it will still be true. I have not known that many persecuted atheists.. i was not when i held that belief, & i argued my position.. well, like i do now, just from the other side. But perhaps your honest questions about life & eternity were met with scorn & ridicule.. that's too bad if that was the case. But a seeker of truth will encounter that all through their life.

Quote :

It's just that my brain cannot accept that jesus is the son of god...to say the least.
If there are no entities, such as gods...then we better well figure out how the story goes without them...cause the truth is the only story I crave and care to make.

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that god is not offended by sincere skepticism, nor appalled at our ignorance, misbeliefs, or even our stupidity. I also believe there are many mysteries in life we will never understand, and we will die in that ignorance. Any insight into the mysteries of life is just dumb luck.. some seem to have an easier path than others. I don't know why.

Now there are false prophets.. or phony 'seekers' in any philosophical realm of learning. Many want to appear 'learned'. I'm sure there are plenty of other motives as well.

Quote :

And i do appreciate that you seem to have more patience and input on the subject than most...even if we do disagree on some major points.
Bullying, name calling, ridiculing, kickin him when he's down...that just avoids the better discussions. The tough discussions.
Some people feel they don't have to justify what they are doing and why. They justify what they do poorly with attacking the obvious, vulnerable, weaknesses of their foe. This is how we continue to argue...by avoiding the argument...and defending ourselves, instead of the truth.

It is a dog eat dog world, & this is true even in philosophy. Some people like to debate.. others like to ridicule.. but even in these apparent qualities an underlying search is taking place. Truth will take root. The light may come on. ..or maybe not. But sometimes even heated arguments can be a vehicle for truth.

Quote :

I don't believe any healthy human wishes to do poorly.
Sometimes it takes a hard lesson to do better. I can do better...as I feel you would too, if givin the chance/choice.
I wish you well.

Thanks for the kind words. I also wish you good luck in your journey. Most of the time, when i think i've figured something out, it comes back to me in a greater mystery, leaving me more dumbfounded & bewildered than ever. I am learning to be content in not knowing.. since it seems that will be my primary philosophical position.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." ~Thomas Jefferson

rydnseek wrote:

mucker wrote:

I would hope you, would understand that I do not command the english language, as well, as I would hope to.As it is my only functional language, I try to make up for lost schoolin. So I just try to work with what I have.
Usually that means using extremes, to describe a middle.
You are corrrect to say that my expressions are in the minority for north america.Which could been seen as an excuse for, "athiests", I guess, to be on a defensive posture...considering they live as a minority, in their community.
But I do feel what is true is true....my brain has concluded that...and that's speaking as a confirmed catholic, from a respectable working class community...that's were i began learning to be a good person...I still want to be the best person I can be...I still got problems...I still want to make it work.

Your english is quite good.. better than my french, i am sure! I'm not bashing atheists.. i'm responding to atheist arguments, but i hope in a more reasonable manner, & not to insult.

And of course, Truth is not decided by majority rule. The majority can be quite wrong, & Truth will not care, & it will still be true. I have not known that many persecuted atheists.. i was not when i held that belief, & i argued my position.. well, like i do now, just from the other side. But perhaps your honest questions about life & eternity were met with scorn & ridicule.. that's too bad if that was the case. But a seeker of truth will encounter that all through their life.

Quote :

It's just that my brain cannot accept that jesus is the son of god...to say the least.
If there are no entities, such as gods...then we better well figure out how the story goes without them...cause the truth is the only story I crave and care to make.

I believe, rightly or wrongly, that god is not offended by sincere skepticism, nor appalled at our ignorance, misbeliefs, or even our stupidity. I also believe there are many mysteries in life we will never understand, and we will die in that ignorance. Any insight into the mysteries of life is just dumb luck.. some seem to have an easier path than others. I don't know why.

Now there are false prophets.. or phony 'seekers' in any philosophical realm of learning. Many want to appear 'learned'. I'm sure there are plenty of other motives as well.

Quote :

And i do appreciate that you seem to have more patience and input on the subject than most...even if we do disagree on some major points.
Bullying, name calling, ridiculing, kickin him when he's down...that just avoids the better discussions. The tough discussions.
Some people feel they don't have to justify what they are doing and why. They justify what they do poorly with attacking the obvious, vulnerable, weaknesses of their foe. This is how we continue to argue...by avoiding the argument...and defending ourselves, instead of the truth.

It is a dog eat dog world, & this is true even in philosophy. Some people like to debate.. others like to ridicule.. but even in these apparent qualities an underlying search is taking place. Truth will take root. The light may come on. ..or maybe not. But sometimes even heated arguments can be a vehicle for truth.

Quote :

I don't believe any healthy human wishes to do poorly.
Sometimes it takes a hard lesson to do better. I can do better...as I feel you would too, if givin the chance/choice.
I wish you well.

Thanks for the kind words. I also wish you good luck in your journey. Most of the time, when i think i've figured something out, it comes back to me in a greater mystery, leaving me more dumbfounded & bewildered than ever. I am learning to be content in not knowing.. since it seems that will be my primary philosophical position.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." ~Thomas Jefferson

I do think humanity, at this point or any point, needs better questions, than answers. Better questions, spawn better answers...where as, answers, don't necessarily spawn good questions.

I don't feel, with my religious experiences, that religion promotes the good questions...rather the good,convenient, workable, answers...if you will. Kinda like "Life for Dummies"...with all do respect.
Religions may have help for those who do not wish to see it all, and yet, still have to function in life.
But I would have a hard time coaching, someone , who wasn't willing to see it all, as it is...as it evolves.
If you aren't willing or knowing to look at it...you'll have a hard time seeing it.

"How can you add to your cup, if it is already full?"

If religious communities waited untill their children were as educated as modernly possible, to adulthood, before subjecting them to, or brainwashing, if you will, with religious prophecies...their community would not survive the dissent. It is the educating/brain washing of unknowing children, that gives their community resources to survive. A child will believe santa clause is real, as easily as a god. Though if givin the opportunity, to evolve educated questions first...would question his existence/purpose well...instead of accepting the convenient truth givin to them.
How well humans educate their children...will say everything about the human race.
If one felt that their child would work better from a rule of thumb...rather than from intelligent calculation...is a choice a parent gets to make for their child, usually.


If someone was ONLY inspired, in a true sense, by religious faith...I would hate to take that away from them. Even though they could, potentially, do better...working with what you got, it's a fact of life.

But even though religions have some good lessons to share...by definition, they exclude allot, in defence of their ways. Time has certainly caused confusion, rather than clarity...for religions.

As a non-believer, I can and still do look at religions for true wisdom.
Though I do not think that the beleivers, look to athiests for true wisdom...and that's a shame.

mucker wrote:

I don't feel, with my religious experiences, that religion promotes the good questions...rather the good,convenient, workable, answers...if you will. Kinda like "Life for Dummies"...with all do respect.
Religions may have help for those who do not wish to see it all, and yet, still have to function in life.
But I would have a hard time coaching, someone , who wasn't willing to see it all, as it is...as it evolves.

So essentially, because you're a religious failure (for lack of a better term) who cannot form a relationship with God, the only POSSIBLE answer is that God does not exit, religions are based on false premises, and because you cannot see God, then nobody can see God. Ergo, the answer must be that the failure is with those who do have a relationship with God, not with the one who cannot form that relationship.

We as a species cannot even grasp the concept of eternity, that there is no beginning and no end to time, except at the very bottom, most basic level. Given that, smug assurances from anyone that there is no God say more about the narrow mindedness and tunnel vision of the person proclaiming that message, than the content of the message has to offer.

Quote :

If religious communities waited untill their children were as educated as modernly possible, to adulthood, before subjecting them to, or brainwashing, if you will, with religious prophecies...their community would not survive the dissent. It is the educating/brain washing of unknowing children, that gives their community resources to survive. A child will believe santa clause is real, as easily as a god.

That argument runs right up on the rocks when you consider all the children who at some age realize there is no Sanata Clause - but continue to believe in God, and continue to go to church.

It also pretty much dies in the starting blocks when you consider how many educated adults adopt religious beliefs as adults. For those so eager to utterly reject religious belief, however, it is a convenient explanation to simply say religious individuals were simply brainwashed as children.

Quote :

If someone was ONLY inspired, in a true sense, by religious faith...I would hate to take that away from them. Even though they could, potentially, do better...working with what you got, it's a fact of life.

So. Because you are an example of a religious failure who could not form a relationship with God, the only possible answer is that your failure proves for all mankind that there is no God. Case closed. And, of course, it must also be a fact of life that those with religious faith could do better "working with what you've got". One could make the point that for them "what you've got" includes God, but that is secondary to the point that you're projecting your failure onto others.

Quote :

But even though religions have some good lessons to share...by definition, they exclude allot, in defence of their ways. Time has certainly caused confusion, rather than clarity...for religions.

Indeed. But those whose religion is based on opposing religion do exactly the same thing - they exclude a lot in defense of their ways.

I don't believe in God. I don't disbelieve in God. It comes back to the issue of something we're aware of every moment of our life: time. Our minds can only grasp the concept of eternity in the most basic of senses. Whether there is a God or not, there is no start to time and there is no end to time. Whatever was there before, there is always a before existing before that. Whatever was after, there is always an after beyond that.

When we can't even grasp the concept of eternity, making absolute declarations as to whether there is a God/Creater/tree sprites/whatever is pretty major league tunnel vision stuff.

Fun with youtube:










I found these to be quite hysterical and informative:







Because of the self correcting structure of the scientific method, science works. False conclusions can be part of science for years but eventually they are identified and corrected. Science welcomes ridicule and skepticism in the pursuit of facts and evidence to better our knowledge.

Where as religion/faith do not help distinguish the truth or falsity of a claim. Faith is not a helpful component of human progress; it does not help us distinguish between the real and the unreal. While people of faith take ridicule about their belief as a personal attack.


We should all be open minded, and the knowledge that is most provable/evident live on to be corrected with even more evidence and knowledge. Religion and God have yet to show any shred of real evidence of their claims.


I would much rather be a "religious failure" and "successful in science" than "indoctrinated successfully with religion" and a "failure at science".

aaronhall555 wrote:

Fun with youtube:

Yes. Because if you saw it on YouTube, it MUST be definitively true, right?

I did a Google search on YouTube for videos that claim to prove that God exists. No lack of responses. If I bothered to post them here, what exactly would that prove?

BTW, how many of the authors of the videos you posted can grasp the concept of eternity - something we intuitively know is a fact, but can't explain. How about "none". But despite that minor failing, they KNOW that there is no such thing as a Creator, Supreme Judge, God, etc.

Quote :

Because of the self correcting structure of the scientific method, science works.

Right. That's why eugenics was championed for decades, before quietly and with as little notice as possible, slinking into history. Name one scientist who championed eugenics who later came out and said "I was wrong".

Quote :

Science welcomes ridicule and skepticism in the pursuit of facts and evidence to better our knowledge.

Really? Try ridiculing iatrogenic global warming and tell us how welcome that is received.

Quote :

Faith is not a helpful component of human progress; it does not help us distinguish between the real and the unreal. While people of faith take ridicule about their belief as a personal attack.

Really? So why don't you look back through this thread and add up the score - tell us how many posters here have attacked religion and the holding of religious beliefs, versus how many posters have attacked atheism and the holding of atheist beliefs. Do a little scientific survey.

It ain't even close, is it?

And you attempt to justify your atheism by claiming that faith is not a helpful component of human progress. Apparently, you hold the rather curious idea that none of the great thinkers, innovators, statesmen, and inventors in the line of human progress were religious. Lincoln was devoutly religious, guided the US through a war and ultimately ended slavery; he repeatedly said he was an instrument fulfilling the word of God, and was guided by God's scriptures. Are you trying to convince us you weren't aware of that?

In fact, if a laundry list were prepared with all the names of those who have advanced "human progress", the names of those who held religious belief would dwarf the list of names of those who were atheists/agnostics.

Quote :

I would much rather be a "religious failure" and "successful in science" than "indoctrinated successfully with religion" and a "failure at science".

Sadly, you have merely established that you are a failure both at religion and at science - your attraction to the "Venus Project" being a case in point. However, your belief that if one has religious faith then the explanation is that one must be indoctrinated is duly noted.

Jäger wrote:

aaronhall555 wrote:

Fun with youtube:

Yes. Because if you saw it on YouTube, it MUST be definitively true, right?

No, but it does shed light on some point of views.

Jäger wrote:

I did a Google search on YouTube for videos that claim to prove that God exists. No lack of responses. If I bothered to post them here, what exactly would that prove?

That would prove absolutely nothing, as we know there would be no real proof presented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Post one that you think has proof. Let's see it!

Jäger wrote:

BTW, how many of the authors of the videos you posted can grasp the concept of eternity - something we intuitively know is a fact, but can't explain. How about "none". But despite that minor failing, they KNOW that there is no such thing as a Creator, Supreme Judge, God, etc.

How someone grasps eternity is completely subjective. Not all atheists fully assert there is no creator, supreme judge, god, etc, just they do not find sufficient proof to identify those claims to be true. Burden of proof is on the ones making the extraordinary claims.

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

Because of the self correcting structure of the scientific method, science works.

Right. That's why eugenics was championed for decades, before quietly and with as little notice as possible, slinking into history. Name one scientist who championed eugenics who later came out and said "I was wrong".

Here's a good read about eugenics by an atheist http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/556602-what-s-so-wrong-with-eugenics . Eugenics is a proven science, we use it all the time from how our food is produced to how we choose a mate.

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

Science welcomes ridicule and skepticism in the pursuit of facts and evidence to better our knowledge.

Really? Try ridiculing iatrogenic global warming and tell us how welcome that is received.

Would it really matter how well it is received as long as proof is present. Criticism would have been a better word for me to use instead of ridicule.

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

Faith is not a helpful component of human progress; it does not help us distinguish between the real and the unreal. While people of faith take ridicule about their belief as a personal attack.

Really? So why don't you look back through this thread and add up the score - tell us how many posters here have attacked religion and the holding of religious beliefs, versus how many posters have attacked atheism and the holding of atheist beliefs. Do a little scientific survey.

It ain't even close, is it?

Pointing out facts about religion is not the same as attacking it. And attacks on religion/belief is just that, attacks on the religion/belief, not the religious/the person with the belief. All in efforts to encourage critical thinking and expanding knowledge.

Here is an interesting quote:

Christopher Hitchens - “It is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect. The ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas.

These ideas have resulted in untold amounts of violence, death, torture, and suffering as well as the profound intimidation and physical molestation of our young. Ridicule and even sneering condescension are about the mildest critical reactions that we can have for the enormity of the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated in their name. I can readily empathize with those of us who consider the behaviors prompted by these dogma to be illegal and criminal.”

Jäger wrote:

And you attempt to justify your atheism by claiming that faith is not a helpful component of human progress. Apparently, you hold the rather curious idea that none of the great thinkers, innovators, statesmen, and inventors in the line of human progress were religious.

Sorry, science trumps faith, see proof. All of the great thinkers/innovators use science to achieve their contributions that better our knowledge and capabilities. Whether they admit it or not.

Jäger wrote:

Lincoln was devoutly religious, guided the US through a war and ultimately ended slavery; he repeatedly said he was an instrument fulfilling the word of God, and was guided by God's scriptures. Are you trying to convince us you weren't aware of that?

Lincoln was also a victim of culture, the dominant religion he was indoctrinated in to had him thinking that his intuition was because of God, everything can be god to some people. People today think they see Jesus in their toast and some even blow themselves up because they think they are doing God's working.

Jäger wrote:

In fact, if a laundry list were prepared with all the names of those who have advanced "human progress", the names of those who held religious belief would dwarf the list of names of those who were atheists/agnostics.

Maybe so, but take in to consideration how atheist have been viewed upon and treated over time, go back far enough and atheism was a death sentence. Would be a great list to see. This is a rather old publication, but still shows that even since 1933 the majority of the scientific community were non believers and is the overwhelming majority, above 72%, back in 1998, I'm sure this figure has grown quite a bit since then. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Jäger wrote:

Quote :

I would much rather be a "religious failure" and "successful in science" than "indoctrinated successfully with religion" and a "failure at science".

Sadly, you have merely established that you are a failure both at religion and at science - your attraction to the "Venus Project" being a case in point. However, your belief that if one has religious faith then the explanation is that one must be indoctrinated is duly noted.

How is an attraction to information and ideas failing at science. The Venus Project is just an organization that uses known proven technologies to depicted/advocate what could be possible if we change how our social and economical systems are structured. Isn't it bizarre that we have the resource capability and technology to solve most of the worlds problems with food, water, medical, energy and education, yet we don't have enough money? Is this really the best we can do?

Here's a good lecture on Venus Project like values and goals, all related to science:

It would be interesting to hear of any athiest society, from recorded history, that persecuted the religious believers...anyone have some little factoids to enlighten us?

Rather, it seems to me, that only since the global communication age, have athiests been seen and treated as a community...hasn't been very long. May directly, coincide with the advancement in human technology, that the world has seen in the last few hundred years. Before these times athiests were actively and productively suppressed by most religions I am aware of....just that nowadays, their efforts aren't as productive. Information is getting harder to suppress and easier to share.

And for arguments sake...God does exist...it's just that he only exists in the minds of the believers.
Is God real?...yes, god is real, in the believers' mind...it's just that there has never and for all eternity, been solid evidence, outside the believers mind, that he/it exists anywhere beyond that.
Humans do need Faith to survive, we must approach the unknown with a certain confidence/faith to answer our questions and solve our problems. Being timid or afraid of the unknown is a characteristic of animals like us. Faith can help you conqeur your fears.
I have faith that the human race has the ability to succeed and prosper and answer its' questions of nature...there is plenty of room for failure...but I have faith in us.

Today one of the bigger arguments is that believers think humans are special and the earth was provided for humans....while an athiest is more likely to realize that we are just another animal, even though an amazing one...and it is this earth that provided what is needed for us to exist and nothing more than nature is needed to explain that accurately...even though we are still working on our explainations, our fact collecting mission will never end...if humans have anything to do with it.

I'm not sure, myself, how to tell someone they are just , plain, wrong...without hurting their feelings...that kinda seems more their problem than mine. Though in the name of humanity, if nothing else, I will do my best to help you find the truth. For all of our sakes.

And is it any surprise at all, the VAST majority of man made climate change deniers, not to mention environmental issues in general, opponents are...believers. There are many hot issues that appear to have a line drawn by religion, to deal with.
Of course these concerns are growing in society, and voices are getting louder...Athiests have never had more of a voice, that has got to be uncomfortable to believers...because it was always controlable before.

I would describe it as Disappointed...not hate. Hate is very different, as you should know.

And for the record...I am not %100 sure what an Athiest is.
Though, that label has been thrust upon me, by society....could have been untouchable...but I guess that was taken.
So, does that mean we athiests have to devide ourselves up like catholics and protestants?

If Athiesm is a religion...then it is the only one you don't have to join to be part of...and interesting idea, to say the least.

If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

aaronhall555 wrote:

Pointing out facts about religion is not the same as attacking it. And attacks on religion/belief is just that, attacks on the religion/belief, not the religious/the person with the belief. All in efforts to encourage critical thinking and expanding knowledge.

Here is an interesting quote:

Christopher Hitchens - “It is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect. The ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas.

These ideas have resulted in untold amounts of violence, death, torture, and suffering as well as the profound intimidation and physical molestation of our young. Ridicule and even sneering condescension are about the mildest critical reactions that we can have for the enormity of the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated in their name. I can readily empathize with those of us who consider the behaviors prompted by these dogma to be illegal and criminal.”

Interesting points.. good debate. It would be nice if philosophy/theology could be discussed in a thoughtful, civil manner, but since when do we humans do that? I don't think either atheists or theists have any monopoly on rudeness, attacks, or ridicule. I do think Jager's point of this thread being an indicator of atheist attacks, ridicule, etc is valid.. doesn't bother me.. people often resort to those tactics when their logic fails.

But i would not give tyrants & violence as an example of the religious, whereas atheist systems have always promoted peace & harmony. Communism in the last century easily disproves that theory.

mucker wrote:

It would be interesting to hear of any athiest society, from recorded history, that persecuted the religious believers...anyone have some little factoids to enlighten us?

You mean like the ussr? How about Mao? Pol pot? I think communism in the last century could easily qualify as an 'atheist society'. And they very much persecuted religious believers.

Quote :

Rather, it seems to me, that only since the global communication age, have athiests been seen and treated as a community...hasn't been very long. May directly, coincide with the advancement in human technology, that the world has seen in the last few hundred years. Before these times athiests were actively and productively suppressed by most religions I am aware of....just that nowadays, their efforts aren't as productive. Information is getting harder to suppress and easier to share.

Skeptics have been around since people. This is not a new idea that modern man has evolved to. There have been skeptic clubs & organizations for a long time, too.. way before global communication.

But regarding the growth of technology, one could more easily argue the scientific advances of theists have been the building blocks. Many of them had to take on the religious establishment, but did so with truth & science. They were not atheists, but believed in a universe of order & consistency of natural laws.. contrary to the common beliefs of the times. There is no conflict for theists with science. Many atheists seem to think they are the only believers in the scientific method, but it was theists who defined it in times past. Most modern day 'pop atheists' i know are woefully ignorant on history & the evolution of modern science.

Quote :

Today one of the bigger arguments is that believers think humans are special and the earth was provided for humans....while an athiest is more likely to realize that we are just another animal, even though an amazing one...and it is this earth that provided what is needed for us to exist and nothing more than nature is needed to explain that accurately...even though we are still working on our explainations, our fact collecting mission will never end...if humans have anything to do with it.
I'm not sure, myself, how to tell someone they are just , plain, wrong...without hurting their feelings...that kinda seems more their problem than mine. Though in the name of humanity, if nothing else, I will do my best to help you find the truth. For all of our sakes.

Most people see the uniqueness of humans. People draw different conclusions about that. But your mission to 'help people find the truth' puts you in the same category of the religious evangelist. You will take your 'truth' & crusade to convince the ignorant & misguided masses. That indicates a pretty heartfelt belief system.

Quote :

And is it any surprise at all, the VAST majority of man made climate change deniers, not to mention environmental issues in general, opponents are...believers. There are many hot issues that appear to have a line drawn by religion, to deal with.
Of course these concerns are growing in society, and voices are getting louder...Athiests have never had more of a voice, that has got to be uncomfortable to believers...because it was always controlable before.

I would say that most global warming advocates are theists. ..and as i have said many times, truth is not by majority rule. I don't think the global warming hysteria is very good science. It seems to me there are varying weather patterns, but the conclusions about global warming seem to be more motivated by a political agenda rather than definitive science.

more later, gotta go!

aaronhall555 wrote:

That would prove absolutely nothing, as we know there would be no real proof presented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Post one that you think has proof. Let's see it!

So... a YouTube video that purports to offer proof there is no God/Creator/Whatever is an ordinary claim requiring no particular proof. But a YouTube video that offers the alternate view is not the same, and demanding of extraordinary proof. You can't prove how life simply came into existence from a pile of inert elements and minerals, yet feel no extraordinary proof is required from your point of view in your claims that there is no God, and thus the existence of life itself did not begin with God.

Different rules for different people. And curiously enough, the higher burden of proof seems to fall on the camp you disagree with.

Quote :

How someone grasps eternity is completely subjective.

Eternity is not subjective. It is a fact.

Quote :

Burden of proof is the ones making the extraordinary claims.

Such as the concept that one moment the universe was nothing but minerals, compounds, and elements. And the next moment, a small fragment of that inert material suddenly came to life, reproducing itself - and life. And it just happened. No, nothing extraordinary about that belief system.

Quote :

Here's a good read about eugenics by an atheist http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/556602-what-s-so-wrong-with-eugenics . Eugenics is a proven science, we use it all the time from how our food is produced to how we choose a mate.

Ah, another enthusiast for the Josef Mengele branch of the sciences.

Quote :

Would it really matter how well it is received as long as proof is present. Criticism would have been a better word for me to use instead of ridicule.

And yet... we find out that leading proponents of iatrogenic global warming have been cooking the books, concealing information, discussing how to discredit critics - but that ain't proof. And when well over a thousand recognized scientists in related fields reject it as bogus - including some who were previously prominent in IPCC - well, that ain't proof either. And yet, supposedly, science is this wonderful, impartial thing.

Quote :

Pointing out facts about religion is not the same as attacking it. And attacks on religion/belief is just that, attacks on the religion/belief, not the religious/the person with the belief. All in efforts to encourage critical thinking and expanding knowledge.

You and your fellow travelers can't even provide a plausible explanation on how life supposedly just... came into being.... from inanimate rock and dirt without being created by a God/Creator. And yet, despite that enormous and glaring shortcoming on your part, you feel entitled to point out "facts" about religion and religious beliefs, because those who hold those beliefs can no more prove them than you can prove yours.

And the fact remains, all the shitty snide little comments about religion and those who hold religious beliefs are coming from the camp you're a member of - not from the religious, directed at people like you. You can dress it up to justify yourself any way you want to, that's the way it's playing out here.

Quote :

Here is an interesting quote:

Christopher Hitchens - “It is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect. The ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas.

I can think of nothing more absurd than the idea that, if we pile a bunch of rocks and lava in a laboratory for a couple of hundred million millenia, suddenly, a fragment in the pile will come to life and reproduce.

You forgot to mention Christopher Hitchens was a person who made a good part of his living off hating religion and wasn't exactly an impartial analyst of the subject. And while he made a living out of ridiculing things he personally didn't agree with, he never did quite bring himself to offer his personal explanation of how that first rock suddenly came to life, did he?

Of course, he was also a rabid Trotskyite and foaming at the mouth leftist. Up to the end of his life he remained an admirer of, among others, Lenin and Che Guevera - and he wants to talk about people who facilitated war and enslaved millions? How many Cubans did Che personally murder after the revolution? How many millions did Lenin kill through "ethnic cleansing" and enslave?

So those are Hitchens hero's - and yet those words from a man who made a living out of hating religion are supposed to have some sort of meaning? I suppose they do in a sense - like the mass murders Che Guevera and Lenin, Hitchens also was an atheist.

Quote :

Sorry, science trumps faith, see proof. All of the great thinkers/innovators use science to achieve their contributions that better our knowledge and capabilities. Whether they admit it or not.

We know you're sorry, but that's not the point. You said that religious beliefs do noting to advance human progress. The fact remains that many, and probably the majority, of the people bringing about that progress - such as Lincoln - hold deep religious beliefs. Many are inspired to do what they accomplish precisely because of those beliefs. Of course, the only way you can deal with that is to say "Lincoln was actually using science, not his religious morality, in his drive to end slavery." I'm not sure how you have come to feel you can critique Lincoln at your tender young age, although I am sure that there are an amazing number of people your age who think they know everything (amazingly enough, the percentage who know everything drops astoundingly as they get older). I am also sure that your explanation for what motivates a Lincoln is the inevitable result of your personal failure to grasp religion - or even grasp the concept.

Quote :

Lincoln was also a victim of culture, the dominant religion he was indoctrinated in to had him thinking that his intuition was because of God, everything can be god to some people. People today think they see Jesus in their toast and some even blow themselves up because they think they are doing God's working.

Being victimized into ending slavery, building a nation - we need more victims like that.

I guess that's the way it works. Back then they were victimized and indocrinated by God; these days they're victimized and indoctrinated by things like the Venus Project. The brainwashing apparently never stops. Some people see Jesus in their toast; others think the Venus Project is a rational view of reality.

Quote :

How is an attraction to information and ideas failing at science. The Venus Project is just an organization that uses known proven technologies to depicted/advocate what could be possible if we change how our social and economical systems are structured. Isn't it bizarre that we have the resource capability and technology to solve most of the worlds problems with food, water, medical, energy and education, yet we don't have enough money? Is this really the best we can do?

The fact that you buy into The Venus Project/Zeitgeist crap is proof enough of failing at science. Where you sneer at the religious for their views on Jesus, you have a remarkably similar faith in Fresco and Joseph. Amusingly enough, like Christianity and Islam, the Venus and Zeitgeist people also have their little spats going on about who is real enough. The adherents of these movements are simply cultists - religion by another road.

mucker wrote:

It would be interesting to hear of any athiest society, from recorded history, that persecuted the religious believers...anyone have some little factoids to enlighten us?

The USSR? North Korea? China? Christians being fed to lions in the Coliseum?

This is news to you?

Quote :

Today one of the bigger arguments is that believers think humans are special and the earth was provided for humans....while an athiest is more likely to realize that we are just another animal, even though an amazing one...

Apparently a few people have not noticed that many atheists/agnostics think humans are special as well. You don't need to have a belief in a God to hold the belief that humans are special.

Quote :

I'm not sure, myself, how to tell someone they are just , plain, wrong...without hurting their feelings...that kinda seems more their problem than mine. Though in the name of humanity, if nothing else, I will do my best to help you find the truth. For all of our sakes.

I doubt you hurt many feelings with that attitude. Most people probably view you no differently than they would somebody walking around holding a sign saying "The end is near". Those who wander around proclaiming to have The Truth to enlighten everyone else with are seldom taken seriously.

Quote :

And is it any surprise at all, the VAST majority of man made climate change deniers, not to mention environmental issues in general, opponents are...believers.

Another amusing assumption on your part. At last count there were around 35,000 scientists who had signed the petition saying that iatrogenic global warming was nothing more than voodoo science - just over 9,000 of them possessing PhDs. Their essential message is that this is anything but consensus as is being claimed, and the arguments being put forward to support iatrogenic global warming are badly flawed in the extreme.

I ask myself two questions:
1. Has Mucker ever actually read that petition and the names on it?
2. Does Mucker even know a statistically representative sample of the scientists whose names are on that petition?

Given that I believe the correct answer is "no" in both cases, the inevitable conclusion is that anyone who claims they know the religious beliefs of "the VAST majority of man made climate change deniers" is merely demonstrating a serious overdose of youthful arrogance and a tenuous grasp on reality.

Of course, it has been postulated that a belief in iatrogenic global warming is merely the cult religion of today's youth, and there's surely ample evidence of that walking around to provide evidence of that.