Slashdot Mirror

Yes, here you can read up on that.
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Bert

I don't know Jack (well, and maybe neither do you), but I think you're really pissing Hank off.

"anonymous coward".

Many people frown on that. I don't care. Even if you'd written your name and you were (the) George Bush, Julia Roberts, Stephen Hawking or the local greengrocer that wouldn't have mattered for the weight of the arguments. They are right or wrong irrespective of who says it.

I don't care whether your example is flawed. Analogies usually go wrong at some point anyway, so do big deal. What is important that science is a method of operating, of increasing knowledge, and of weeding out what is not correct. As a scientist you can get famous (and funds!) by discovering something new, by proving that something is true, but also by proving that something is wrong. In fact, if someone were to prove that the earth is . Scientists are used to shift if reality requires that of us. You probably know the saying that the tragedy of science is that a beautiful theory (hypothesis would be a better word) is that it can be killed by an ugly fact. For scientists, humility is taught the hard way in that you cannot bend reality. Oops, I'm sidetracking a bit. The important thing is that science has a powerful set of tools, and we can do experiments to figure things out (both for real and by logic in our heads) . Perhaps god(s) exist(s). So far, no evidence for that.

No religious books exist that contain knowledge that couldn't be known to the people at the time. It wouldn't have been too hard to write a passage in the bible/qu'ran/thora/whatever that spiral-shaped strands of life exist, in mammal made up as pairs of strands having 4 building blocks. When a man and a woman get together each provides half the strands. Now, that would have been something that couldn't be known and would show that the book indeed has non-human-only influences.

To educate yourself on the non-creation of mankind, you may want to check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
With a modicum of high-school biology you'd see that at best god created us by evolution, not by mucking around with mud.

As to what why I don't believe in a particular religion, you could check out this link:
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

"I'm merely practicing defending my faith."
Just to be sure, I'm not attacking it. I'm a "truth first" guy, and if your religion is at some points at odd with that, it is nothing to be ashamed of and it is in good company with other meme-based religions.

If you don't agree and want to do more practicing, you may want to visit http://richarddawkins.net/forum/

Have a nice day,

Bert

Hey, I'm going to heaven. I would disgust me to have embryo's walking around. Or are embryos allowed to develop further? If I strike a conversation with attractive soul: "Hey, how was your life?", will that be the same faux pas as I make here on earth?

Bert
Heaven is a stupid concept, For a clearer understanding, go here: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank

Athiesm IS the safe bet.

OK, lets suppose you believe in a god. Which pisses your god off more, not believing in any gods, or believing in one of his competitors?

Now place your bet. Which god are you going to believe in? Now, if you're like most people you'll choose the one you were indoctrinated to believe in. In the history of the world, far more people have not believed in your god than have. Even right now more people don't believe in your god than do.

Better do your research. You'd better read up on all the gods that have ever been worshipped to make sure you pick the right one. Assuming you only choose a single one and that there is only one god, rather than a pantheon, your chances are probably about 1 in 10,000 you'll get it right. You'll waste a good fraction of your life on this fruitless search. That's pretty high stakes in this bet.

You would think that an all powerful god would make the choice obvious. If you think the choice is obvious, feel free to stand on a box in St. Peters Basilica, at the great mosque in Mecca, at the temple of Tirupati, at the Wailing Wall, any of the thousands of temples to the god you didn't pick, and explain to them why they picked the wrong god. If you picked the right one, I'm sure he will protect you. After all, there are no true believers in a foxhole, because what would a true believer need a foxhole for?

Since the choice isn't obvious, more logical assumption is that either there isn't a god, or he doesn't give a damn who you worship or even if you worship.

Read Kissing Hank's Ass for an alternative look at Pascal's wager.

What does that leave, exactly?

Or, I could just, you know, decide for myself what is right, based on my experiences and readings, and believe in reality, rather than thousands of year old mythologies because hank told me to.

Oh, it really sounds ridiculous. Trust me.

Although, congrats for actually considering your faith. Most people don't manage that.

Dude. Hank is so gonna kick your ass for posting that, as soon as you leave town. Karl told me so.

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

This morning there was a knock at my door.

When I answered the door I found a wellgroomed,
nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

If God does exist, presumably He'll know I don't really believe in Him, that I'm pretending to believe in him on the off chance that He might really exist. If He's willing to accept me if I just "Go through the motions" then I suspect just being a good person will also be enough. Pascal's own answer to this point was that this is why we have churches, to help us grow in faith. In other words, if I submit to a church-approved brainwashing program, they can make me believe. I do not find this comforting.

I wonder if the Evolve-o-Matic could help your post evolve...
See http://www.jhuger.com/evolve.php

Most people automatically assume that if a God existed, that he would be the God as told in the Jewish/Christian Bible. Frankly, I see no reason for that to be true. The lack of a divine apology for the December 26th tsunamis and cancer are some of my arguments against a detail-oriented God, who created man in his own image, and takes a personal interest in the salvation of every person. The existence of malaria, SIDS and spider-infesting wasps are good reasons not to believe in a benevolent God.

It may not be possible to prove/disprove the existence of a god or two who can subvert the physics of our realty. The specific personality of the God in the Bible can be judged against what we know. Judged, and found wanting.

For a lighter note, I invite you to learn about Hank.

There's no flaw in any scientific method here.

A person using the scientific method would say: "Hmmm, that's interesting. I wonder how that is possible." She would then enumerate some possibilities, narrow down some theories. She would then test her theories and discard the ones that don't hold up. She'd also share her observations with people who have theories on fossilization since they will certainly want to know about this so they can revise their theories.

For a non-scientific person, this is too much hassle. Some of them would go further and suggest that some guy named Hank just made it so.

Personally, I think the scientific method yields better results, as the process gets us closer to the truth with each new discovery. The only people who find this confusing are those with brain disfunction and those with an unhealthy fascination for Hank's ass.

jsut admit that he is right,that it works!! His grandpa told him so it MUST BE TRUE!

BTW, would you like to Kiss hank's Ass with me??

(and yes that is a link to text,not anything nasty....)

This guy has a "FUQ": Fictitious, Unasked Questions. He's being honest on the fact that most "questions" in FAQs are forged by the authors anyway.

Watch "The Passion Of The Chirst" to see what he endured for us.

I don't understand why crucifixion was needed for salvation, do you?

You only need to accept this gift to be saved.

I'll accept that gift after judgment day.

You can choose to take the present, or you can leave it. It's your choice.

That's the problem I have with Christian theology. A lot of atheists that I respect are going to end up hell because of the cruel way in which Jesus discriminates. You understand this, I understand this, and if Jesus were a better person, he wouldn't have made faith a prerequisite for salvation.

If it were possible, wouldn't you have helped the Jews, Romani, and homosexuals escape from the concentration camps? Jesus should help them escape from hell. He shouldn't have created hell in the first place. Even christian charities help non-christians. Shouldn't Jesus do the same?

Do you think that killing and/or torturing all the unfaithful is the right thing for a god to do?

What killing and/or torturing are you talking about?

I am talking about creating the lake of fire, and sending the unfaithful there. Please read this it's not very long, and it will help you understand how some people view the teachings of Christ's disciples.

I invite you and all religious followers to come kiss Hank's ass

Thank you

2. There IS NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS. The writings of Christian theologians are not acceptable because of the conflict of interest, we need secular evidence as well. However, the only evidence Christians have provided is the writings of the secular historian Josephus -- and the parts of Josephus' writings which directly refer to Jesus or Christianity were discovered to be forgeries committed by theologians. Pick up a modern translation of Josephus from a secular source...it does not contain that passage anymore because scholars agree on its fraudulent nature. Other than that there is nothing.

3. There are all kinds of philosophies that do not depend on God for morality or ethics. Don't believe me? Read from the following authors:

David Hume
Frederich Nietsche
Immanuel Kant
Baruch Spinoza
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Mark Twain
Ayn Rand
Robert Pirsig

It's pretty clear that the existence of a supernatural entity which rewards or punishes people cannot be the basis for morality, actually. That's just coersion. Morality is when you do good because there's a logical reason for it, not because you've been threatened.

4. There is a terrific website at this location that can address your questions and concerns about freedom from religion. While you're at it, I suggest you check out this one as well. May prove to be informative.

I suppose you aren't going to kiss Hank's butt with us, are you?

An enlightened man might use a Mac to edit a movie, Windows to play a game, and UNIX to write software. If his neighbor uses Windows to edit a movie, and a Mac to play a game, the enlightened man will accept, and perhaps even celebrate these differences. If someone tells the enlightened man that he should be using Windows 3.1 (the One True OS) the enlightened man will feel free to call that man an idiot. If the same man simply states that Windows 3.1 has always worked for him and he sees no reason upgrade, the enlightened man will nod his assent, and offer the man his copy of MS Word 1.0.