Why not try out a simple RPG with them, like the D&D Basic set from the 80s? My kids picked it up quick, and had fun with a loosely run fantasy dungeon. Of course, we went on to play some rather weird Call of Cthulhu scenarios, so my kids might not be representative of the general age group. If you are the DM, you still get to "read" the stories to them, but now they get to be active participants. If you have to, take a hammer to the rules and get rid of anything that the kids don't find fun. If you take the time to build up your own scenarios, you can even work in some real world logic skills and such. Plus, it can be a lead in to other fantasy/sci-fi series. Anyway, that's the direction I went, and it turned out well.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Or:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Reason and science are usually only tolerated as long as they do not threaten to undermine religious beliefs. The moment they do, then you see the irrational roots of religion shine through. The Catholic church, for example, is ok with evolution, until you point out that there was never a time where there was only two human beings. There are a few Eastern religions which I understand do not take this stance(Buddhism, if I am not mistaken), but it is the prevalent view in Western and Middle Eastern religions.
In regards to funding such efforts, Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said:
“Without it, we might as well slide back to the cave, because that’s where we’re headed right now — broke.”
It's rather pathetic that we are willing to waste untold amounts of resources on mindless violence, and yet let programs which could further our knowledge of the universe sit unused on the drawing board.
I still can't force myself to Believe, but at this point, I am seriously considering converting sheer practical benefits (hence why I'm posting anonymously)
So, you are willing to live a lie? Are you looking to be congratulated on that? I have news for you: (ir)religion is not the only basis for social gatherings. Find something else that interests you, and meet up with other people who like that. You think that religion is "verging on madness" and yet you are willing to try and live like that for the rest of your life? That, sir, is verging on madness.
You're referring to transubstantiation. It's really convoluted, and I'm not Catholic, but the opening of the Wiki article implies the physical attributes of the wine and bread aren't altered, even though the "substance" changes to that of Christ's flesh and blood (no idea what that means). My crude opinion is that they made up an invisible attribute so their crazy theory can't be proven wrong by a simple autopsy.
You are both both correct. Both of those churches teach that the Eucharistic species(bread and wine) changes into the actual body and blood of Jesus. The Orthodox generally take the Eucharist under both forms each time(usually a small piece of bread soaked in wine on a spoon), while the Catholic take only the bread(though it is becoming more common for there to be Eucharistic ministers who offer the wine as well). The Catholics believe that both the body and blood are represented in both species(not sure on the Orthodox belief here).
Now, the Orthodox are not going to use the term "transubstantiation" with their rejection of scholasticism, so they'd use the term "metousiosis." In either case, both churches(recognizing that church is a flexible word here) insulate themselves from actually having to prove such ludicrous claims by claiming that there is a difference between what a thing "IS" and what its physical properties are. Eucharistic miracles were commonly claimed in early Catholic tradition, often times in conjunction with a persecution of Jews, who were held to use consecrated hosts as victims in private rituals. This nonsense has cost real people their lives, and it's quite disgusting. Even today, Catholics get upset about host desecration(see PZ Myers' Crackergate).
I considered your characterizations for about.01 seconds (that'd be a value up to and including.0149999999..., to introduce you to basic math). I'm specifying it that way, incidentally, not because I can't specify it any more accurately, but because there is no necessary informational purpose to more accuracy considering the context.
Then I referred again to reality.
I scanned this for a single intellectually-honest response. Couldn't find one.
So, clearly we are unable to meaningfully communicate. So, I'll just wait and let the 150-year 0% survival rate of your still-unsupported (beyond the mere name itself) Secular Humanism take care of it for me.
Yeah, I find it rough to talk to people with their heads as firmly planted rectally as you, too, although you are quite amusing, in your own infantile way. I'd say I'll wait for you to give up your childish beliefs, but statistically it is unlikely that you have the wit or drive to manage that much.
Unbelievable. Same exact mental pattern. No, OBVIOUSLY, making an -equivalent- prophecy.
Oh, sure. Here's one: no person will ever exhibit the powers of Superman. Here's another: no person will ever grow to be over 100 feet tall. Here's another: no man will ever be able to tell a mountain to cast itself into the sea and have it happen. How's that for equivalent? So far, in the last 10 seconds, I have amassed 6.8 billion data points, and it's only going to grow. Damn, this is fun! I should have taken up prophesy a long time ago! Perhaps if you weren't so blind, you'd see that your "prophesy" is just the same. There is no evidence at all that men ever lived to be hundreds or even tens of thousands(if you buy into Sumerian mythology) of years old. Yet, the oldest parts of your holy book clearly mention people hundreds of years old. So, the non-idiots of the world would look at your prophesy and say, "ah, here's an attempt by Jewish story tellers at an explanation for why these supposed ancients lived so long, and why no one lives that long now." And we'd look at the comparable lifespan of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, along with the general lifespans of mammals our size, and we'd point and laugh at people who think this is the result of some divine edict.
Obviously, I would know about "Saint" Calment. I'm not doing this exact same thread again I already did a month ago.
So, you are stupid enough to have been corrected a month ago, and yet still make the claim?
Suffice it to say--two significant digits were specified, all the billions fit within that specification, per how math always works for measurements. This is one of a half-dozen ways she fails to be a contradiction, but since it's absolutely clear you have the same personality type as that other guy did for a hundred posts, and will randomly switch topics and evade the entire way along each individual line of argument, claiming that since you're still talking irrelevantly about at least one of them, you've met what's necessary for you to do with -all- the rationales, to establish a contradiction. Not going to do that again. "120", two significant digits, all of the billions fitting with in that, -one- statistical outlier across all time, not showing it inaccurate, but actually illustrating its accuracy as an endpoint as specified.
Ah, so you retreat from your claim, start tossing out personal reasons as to why I'm going to find your claim silly, and then claim that your god's word is vague enough to include a certain measure of error. So, tell me, where does it say in your holy book exactly how much deviance we can expect from divine pronouncements? With the increase in medical knowledge and technique, people are living longer and longer. How long will your faith in this "prophesy" last when it becomes more common for people to exceed 120?
I weight them all, as is appropriate, according to the context. If Joseph Smith had martyred himself for a particular belief, rather than living a life of a self-interested scam artist, that would have weight quite heavily as a significant factor.
So, you aren't evaluating the prophesies themselves, and their likelihood of being valid, but rather by the subjective behavior of the prophet? No wonder you are so screwed up.
I use basic, logical criteria to evaluate things, same as everyone does when not evading as you are now.
Liar. You use specious reasoning and selective observation to rationalize the beliefs you already have.
I was once very close to considering myself Objectivist, and would easily outclass you if I were arguing your side of atheism
Outclass me? LOL, you are barely even coherent! You hop from "I'm sure that I'll live forever," to "the fact that people have a lower average lifespan than mythical characters from my holy book is proof that god exists." In case you haven't notice
He would have no market if no one was alive either. Yes there are some fundamental physical needs, but they are miniscule comparatively speaking, but as technology changes so does our need for resources. We can go on, to the limits of the universe and how there's a certain amount of energy per bit needed, but those are extremes, we have along way to go to reach any meaningful limitation.
I honestly don't see what you are missing here. You stated that
liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true.
The opposite of finite is infinite. So, you claimed that there is an infinite amount of wealth. As we pointed out, this is ludicrous. Your example illustrates this completely. A person cannot create wealth(at least, real wealth, as one can always "print money", though that doesn't represent an increase in wealth) without utilizing natural resources, either directly or indirectly. Software is just piggybacking, if you will, on top of the physical devices it runs on.
And the real point of this thread is that you can't just keep increasing your use natural resources and expect them to last forever. Some regenerate(like wood and food, albeit sometimes too slowly) and some are damaged irreparably by overuse(like overfishing and large scale pollution). There is a cost, in entropy, for everything you do or create. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to make note of this physical fact of the universe. And we are seeing it. Sure, if you look at a big enough picture, the market will correct itself. After all, when a significant number of humans have died from war and lack of resources, there will be a correspondingly smaller demand. Some of us are not keen on waiting until the who nest is fouled before we start looking at how much we are shitting everywhere.
Going back, his wealth is dependent on software, yes there are some physical aspects, there are atoms that have be moved, but nothing physical is made.
Good so far. Now, take it to its logical conclusion. If those "physical aspects" aren't there to allow for Bill's software to run, what value can he offer to trade for wealth? The answer is zero. In Bill's case, his wealth was built on PCs. You remove any of the "physical aspects" in question, and his software is completely useless. All the software mankind can write is useless if we don't have devices to run it on, and electricity to power it. The existence of utilized natural resources in a very specific configuration is the only thing that allows Bill to sell anything at all. If he didn't have someone else create something from natural resources, he would have no market.
Hence, the point: all wealth is ultimately based on natural resources.
The richest man in thew world is rich because he creates nothing from natural resources, Bill Gates, who's wealth depends on software.
Are you daft? Let connect the dots. You see the physical device that you just used to post this moronic statement? That was built from natural resources. Oh, and the electricity which is used to run that piece of hardware? Generated by utilizing(and likely burning) natural resources. So, no, Bill Gates' wealth is entirely dependent on natural resources.
Except that some ingenious fellow creates an alternative fuel that is cost effective and makes a fortune.
Ah, yes, an appeal to magic. The availability of natural resources is completely unrelated to the ability for your "ingenious fellow." It will just "poof" into existence regardless!
Seriously, you need to pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate.
I am saying, as clearly as it is in your own mind, since you've denigrated prophecy, I suggest backing that up by doing something even very marginally as notable, or acknowledge the much more difficult example is, in fact, notable.
Look at this sentence. It makes no fucking sense in the least. As notable as what? Making a prophesy? Sure thing: tomorrow, some idiot will kill someone else over religion. Here's another: at some point in the future, there will be an earthquake. Here's another: at some point in the future, there will be a war. Hot damn, I'm a prophet! Someone get me a TV show on TBN and have the sheep starting sending in cash, cause it's time for a fleecing!
The maximum lifespan of man, to the accuracy offered, as "120 years", has held true for the millenia from the time the limit was declared/predicted and written in Genesis to this very moment, over billions of people. As such, it is not subject to retroactive correction or anyone acting, intentionally or otherwise, such as to fulfill the prediction. It is beyond the scope of any individual or collective action to do that.
Oops, your god has failed again: The oldest verified person ever is Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122 years 164 days. Source
So, what, now that you've argued that the limit was 120 years, are you going to move the goalposts? Either Jeanne violated your god's edict by living too long, or it was never a hard limit in the first place. In either case, your "prophesy" is proven to be as wrong as everything else you believe.
I was further noting how your "explanation" isn't viable for a broad range of prophecies. It simply defies common sense to assert that both a) a person is actively "faking" or "forcing self-fulfillment" to a prophecy, as that choice presumes that they know their religion is false, and b) they would cause or allow their own death to support it, knowing that. This situation is not analogous to the situations and forms of support of belief you are referencing.
Bullshit. Which prophesies do you want to acknowledge as true? The Mormon ones? Jehovah's Witnesses? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Seventh Day Adventists? The various and sundry "Evangelical" Christian prophecies? If you had the brains to study your own tripe, you'd know that ALL of those groups have claimed to have made and fulfilled prophesies. And that's only the few I thought of off the top of my head, and doesn't even count the written prophesies of the various "holy books." Hell, it doesn't even include any non-Christian prophets! It's universally stupid. Either they are precise and end up failing(like yours did), or they are so vague that they are entirely open to whatever interpretation one would care to apply and thus can never be objectively fulfilled(like the turgid nonsense of the Christian book of Revelation).
You've managed to drag this out quite a bit, for a situation where objectively speaking, both according to your worldview, -and- my worldview, your side of the discussion could offer neither me nor anyone anything
Well, you are correct here. Once one is sufficiently brainwashed by religion, it's rare that one ever manages to overcome their dogmatic biases.
(given, if you're wrong, your position offers nothing, and if you're right, your position offers nothing--because there would be no valid content to the domain under discussion). Given that from both our perspectives your stance is worth a maximum possible of nothing--are we done now?
Yes, a realistic worldview, based on an empiric evaluation and understanding of the universe, is not likely to appear to offer anything to foolish idiots caught up in the false majesty of fairy tales and bloody tales of divine vengeance. It's far too civilized a worldview to appeal to those enthralled with bronze age blood gods and their milquetoast progeny.
Look, fool, I don't have time to explain how causality or time work to you.
Judging by your posts so far, I doubt that you would be up to the task of explaining anything.
If you think he can predict the age of your death alone, over a mere few decades, as opposed to that "nomad" getting the age right across billions of people, over future millenia, then try it.
Who is "he?" Are you suggesting that Dawkins is a prophet? Really, is this supposed to be a cogent train of thought?
If you're unclear that the prediction is -still being validated-, in an ongoing empirical fashion, allowing neither the possibility of "retroactive correction of the prediction" nor "acting such that the prediction will be the case"--then, well, as you've demonstrated in a number of cases, you just need to be able to think better.
Oh, yeah, it's still being validated? You'll have to be more specific on what particular cult you are a part of if you expect me to be able to pin down what nonsense you are speaking about.
In the alternative, if you think people are/were willing to say, "Okay, well, we have to fake this prediction, so, well, I'll assume the religion's false, but I'm going to go ahead and deliberately get killed for it anyway", do it, or drop it.
Do what? Fake a prophesy and get killed for it? No thanks, I'll leave that you lame ass religionists. Perhaps you ought to take a look around yourself. Do you not see the fools who follow every half baked preacher who rails about the end times? Do you not see the cults of all flavors, teeming with prophecies and miracle claims? Do you not see that, no matter what sect you belong to, there is a branch of your own religion which denies what you believe? The myth building, the reinterpretations, the syncretistic cult building, it's all still going on today! Only a true fool doesn't realize that it was going on thousands of years ago, as well.
Who's talking about being "unbounded"? Here's a peer-reviewed medical study in the Lancet, quantifying eye-witness accounts of post-death phenomena directly corresponding to theistic metaphysics.
Congratulations. You turned out to be even stupider than I thought initially. This is about the dumbest study I've had the misfortune of reading. I mean, fucking read it:
Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE.
This in no way precludes that medical factors didn't account for NDEs, any more than the fact that not all snake bite victims freaking die precludes venom from being life threatening. Talk about a massive non sequitur. But it gets even better!
These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.
Oh, look, a blind fucking assertion! Not surprising that you find it so compelling, since you spout off the same failing logic.
Hell, those problems were just from my cursory reading. A few moments on google would help you see a lot more(not that I think you are remotely interested in actually testing your beliefs). Hell, they make their bias explicit when they equated "positive change" with "more religious." Hey, Beavis, do you think that their sloppy methodology might be a result of their desire to shoehorn the results into the framework they already believed? I think maybe so, Butthead.
and that you have no such alternative leprechaun study
Bullshit. I have a backlog of centuries of leprechaun stories. And fairies, and everything else. Far more anecdotal evidence that you can possibly deny.
You know as clearly in your own brain that the two aren't equivalent -even to you-, which is why you attempt this whole line of rhetorical nonsense.
Oh, this should be good. Let's see why you think I'm lying!
If -you yourself- believed them equivalent, there is no reason simply not to use the standard terminology of "God", confident in an equal degree of automatic derision and incredulity in your "audience".
Oh, look, fucking gibberish! Because I don't use the right terminology, therefore magic brain soul? God damn(there, am I using the terminology you apparently think is fucking relevant at all), you make no sense at all.
You don't do that, because, as a measure of your lack of intellectual honesty, you need, and assert, that they are the same conceptually, knowing fully well in your own mind they are not as the only reason for even starting your attempted rhetorical "comparison".
So, following your breathtakingly inane example of a non sequitur, you engage in weapons grade projection! Good job, nitwit! Is this really the best you can do, even in a throw away/. row?
That's your "analysis"? That's just pathetically content-free, as well as presuming your own experience as the definition of "empirical", both of which have a level of validity that would get you laughed out of any Philo 101 class. You can do better.
That wasn't an analysis, you pinhead. Of course I can do better. There's a reason why I didn't bother filing the paperwork for the minor in philosophy that I qualified for. Because, aside from symbolic logic, once I spent some serious time studying metaphysics, I realized that it was fucking useless. The only alternative to empiricism is to deny it by engaging in some level of Cartesian doubt, which is dead end(if you
Just as I do, in fact, know that we are all actually just vehicles for invisible green leprechauns(yes, they are both invisible and green because I have asserted it as true), who crawl out of our arses when we die. They go on to attend a sumptuous pot luck dinner at the center of the Earth, which is catered by a mystical talking capybara. After getting some Thai massages from the personification of irrational numbers, they crawl up the ass of a baby as it is in the birth canal, and start the process over. This is why it is a logical certainty that kids born by C-section are soulless monsters.
Geez, it's almost like you can invent any damned thing you like when you are unbound by empirical observation!
And you have absolutely no possible way to know otherwise, as a -formal certainty of epistemology-, other than as a claim to psychic abilities on your part. But since you cannot verify my claim, and your statement as a claim to knowledge otherwise is provably a falsehood, I'll just say... I'll take that bet.
And since you cannot disprove my claim, you must accept it as at least as true as yours. I'll take that bet!
"Simplistic" as opposed to what, you offering none at all? Pick something less "simplistic", then, I'll take you apart on any stance, secular or theological, you like. Throwing in empty characterization to substitute for an actual argument isn't any more convincing to me than it is to you.
The empirical analysis of the universe is what I offered. Are you completely daft, or is English just not your primary language?
Thanks for directly admitting a complete void of any usable stance, then. Saves time. You couldn't do otherwise anyway, may as well move things along.
So, what are the options here? You are either:
A. Suffering from periodic blindness which prevented you from reading the next two sentences in my response, or
B. Ignoring the next two sentences because the existence of secular humanism refutes your main point, or
C. You are a liar by omission.
Evidence-free conjecture,
Why, if it were so, it would be on par with your groundless assertions. Project much, do you?
but I invite you to try it yourself, with an individual selected yourself. Then justify them from your own stance, in some way, already. You could at least make an argument that they might increase their adherents' DNA propagation rates, rather than airy nothing backing it that could address a simple "why?".
Yup, you are apparently too blinkered to even acknowledge the existence, for many, many years, of secular humanists.
Then point out your real-world test case, where your half-constructed worldview has worked successfully. Should be easy enough to do, if your argument had any merit.
Sure thing. I point out EVERY FUCKING SECULAR HUMANIST WHO IS ALIVE. Christ on a stick, you people are dense! This is why the US has to have things like Reason Rally, because fucktards like you can't be arsed to even acknowledge that there are people who have fully functional philosophical and ethical systems which are not based on your primitive and masturbatory theological ramblings! Shit, this is why we heap scorn on your anally-inserted heads!
And, no, it doesn't scare me in the least, nor is there the slightest sensible reason it could, as, if you haven't noticed, even apart from the expectations of my metaphysics, it's my subculture that is easily numerically and politically dominant--and if I were to limit myself to your position, it is clearly -your- worldview, from say, a Darwinian standpoint, that actually has reason to feel such a reaction.
Why am I not surprised that you are unaware of the statistics regarding the demographics of believers versus non-believers in the US and world population, vis-a-vis the rise of non-religionists and the shrinking base of hardcore dogmatists? Hell, it evens fits into the general apocalyptic persecution narrative you twits are so fond of.
Well, if you consider the knowledge means I'll have eternal life, and you'll just be inevitably "naturally deselected" as you claw for a few seconds more like a dog dying in an alley...
Or maybe our souls will both be weighed by Anubis to determine our fates. Or maybe we'll end up in Vahalla. Isn't it fun to generate "knowledge" by making it up as you go? Congrats on that sound footing.
In fact, I would propose to you that the very basis upon which you gauge and infer the future of the world around you, is based very much, both informationally and methodologically, on theism--entirely whether you choose to admit it or not.
Utter dipshittery. The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is.
You see, I do not credit atheism with any functional system of behavioral norms whatsoever of its own--merely a provisional, self-contradictory approximation of one, for people for which it exists at all, that is based on indirect cultural assimilation of theism's cultural influence. I'll change my stance on this when, for the first time in history, atheism actually -generates- a coherent, sustainable set of behavioral norms that are not merely "the opposite of whatever theism says on the topics I feel like applying that to".
Atheism does not presuppose any sort of behavioral norms, sans those which are intrinsically tied to religion. I mean, you'd have to consider something like secular humanism for that. But then, the every existence of secular humanism disproves your whole point, doesn't it?
If you asked them, independently, to write down their own Top 5 ethical axioms (even ones they know they cannot justify beyond pure subjectivity), I guarantee there would be essentially no correlation with regard to what they are -for-, independent of reference to theism.
Rubbish. They would be pointing out things like the ethic of reciprocity, the freedom of self determination, the freedom from slavery, etc. None of which require your silly theistic beliefs to justify. Are you really so lost in the dark that you've not paid attention to what they(and many like them) have been writing for decades, hell, millenia, now?
If you theists weren't busy mentally masturbating with theology, you might actually learn that the world doesn't need your cosmological boogeyman to either deduce ethics or run a civilization. If that doesn't scare you shitless, it should. Because one day, if you lunatics don't manage to take the human race with you in your insanity, your whole religion and worldview will be just another footnote that kids will learn from dusty old books on mythology.
Well, that was certainly a long reply. Thanks for that Creedo. I would like to speak with you more about this as you seem to have a need to take your anger of religion out on me.
I was not aware that I was. You are not a captive audience, so you are free to cease reading at any time.
Tell me, were you raised as a Roman-Catholic (I only ask because of the passionate way you have been responding to my religious beliefs specifically)? You could message me if you do not feel comfortable stating this in a public forum.
My conversion story is public. As you might surmise from my familiarity with RCC dogma, I was raised Catholic. Many a year was wasted in that church. Indeed, I was considering graduate work to begin a life of ministry when I came to my senses.
In reference to my beliefs, I will offer no defense because, as I stated to you in the last reply, my faith is mine (which is something the Catholic church actually does understand and accept.
You could always ask the SSPX how a difference in theology is viewed from the hierarchy. Or the various groups ordaining women. Or the syncretistic religions of the southern hemisphere. I could go on. The RCC has never been friendly to anything they viewed as heretical or heterodox.
You claim to have read the Bible from cover to cover (though this makes no sense considering the Christian Bible isn't meant to be read in that format)
This strikes me as odd. Why would I not read the bible when I was Catholic? The basic thought is not to say that I followed it like a curriculum, but rather that I am more than passingly familiar with the contents, which is something you will notice a lot of Christians assume is not true when speaking with non-believers.
have you ever taken the time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Of course, many times. One does not engage in Catholic apologetics without having one on hand.
You might find some useful information that would help you to continue to hate Catholics or might open you up to understand why I don't need to lie to the church to be faithful).
I don't hate Catholics. I don't hate many people at all(and none of those few for reasons relating to their religion). I do, however, hate the systems of beliefs which you are a part of, and which enslave so many people.
Your comment about me feeling as though I have no right to question others beliefs, you claim to be superficial and that it would be easy to make me act as though my beliefs were better, If you truly knew me, you might find your opinion different
Try it on as a mental challenge. Envision the worst litany of atrocities that you can stomach. Now, envision a belief system which celebrates those acts. I can tell you right now, it's trivial to imagine such a system and to declare that my beliefs are better. Unless you are a bona fide sociopath, I would wager that it would be trivial for you as well. And there is a reason for that. Our morality is not a purely relative construct. Rather, it is based on biology at its deepest root, and our basic social interactions at a more intelligible level. That's why most religions have similar in-group dynamics. These are human morals, not religious, atheist or otherwise. And while there is a wide latitude in moral reasoning, aside from sociopathic outliers, there are general boundaries. Whale, prairie dogs, wolves and chimpanzees(to name a few random species which popped into my head) all have their respective social structures and, likewise, the respective intergroup behavior processes we call morality in humans.
(though I am not certain you would be the type of person open enough to be willing to do that which would be no different than the bible-thumping people I grew up around (I was not raised Roman-Catholic).
Actually Creedo, my beliefs are my own. They are not for you or the Roman-Catholic Church.
I frankly have no interest in what you do or do not believe. However, you claim allegiance to an organization which emphatically does care what you believe, and indeed builds a profession of belief into their primary ritual, the Mass. It is also a requirement for participation in the Eucharist to agree with their doctrine and dogma. If you are cool with lying to them, so be it.
If you spoke to people openly (assuming they were willing to do so with you), you may find that most only believe in portions of their religion while not all at the same time.
Do you find it to be some amazing revelation that most people are hypocrites when it comes to their religion? I do not.
With that in mind, realize that I reside in the Roman-Catholic faith for my own reason (not theirs). I labeled myself a Henotheist because I truly feel that we all worship something
This is false. We do not all worship anything, unless you water down the meaning of the word "worship" until it is utterly useless.
and who am I (one singular person) to believe that my beliefs are better than yours or anyone's.
Your relativism is amusing, but superficial. I bet it would be trivial to get you to act as though your beliefs were better. This is also another break between you and your church. They most certainly do claim that their beliefs are superior to all others, going so far as to claim that a deity is actively protecting them from teaching error.
As for studying society in a religious framework for the last five-years (actually, I've been doing it for much longer, but my degree work has only been in the last five), yes. I feel that by having a better understanding of how culture relates to each other through something as indoctrinated as religion, perhaps one day the world will be more understandable in my own eyes.
A laudable goal. Perhaps you would be more successful if you didn't engage in polysyllabic patronizing commentary on random blogs.
You comments, while seemingly meant to be offensive were taken only as your attempt to disregard my opinion on Circlewell's comment. What I do not understand is your need to insult.
Given the condescending tone of your initial post, is it any surprise that I replied in the same vein?
I have not sought to diminish you in your beliefs (truly your beliefs are as valid or invalid as Circlewell's even if they seek to show you as someone who believes that he is better than others in some way because your beliefs are different).
And yet you diminish both of our beliefs(and your own, not to mention the church you profess to be a member of) by ignoring the very real differences in both how they are derived and how grounded they are in any form of logic or empiricism.
What right do you have to do so with mine?
I am no respecter of beliefs or ideas. They are all fodder for dissection and attack. If you can't handle that, then why do you even make the pretense of doing post-graduate work? Do you not have to defend your ideas?
Ah yes, the atheist defense: "Do all the work and find the evidence, and I will judge with my superior human wisdom if it's true."
If I were postulating the existence of invisible monsters running the universe, I, too, would be compelled to actually present evidence before expecting someone to take me seriously. Apparently, bronze age blood gods are exempt from this policy in some minds. I also note that you didn't bother to defend some of the disgusting acts your god commanded and condoned. Unsurprising in the least.
Fine then. I'm going to point you to two books to get you started.
If physics, mathematics, and astronomy are your thing, I invite you to read Hugh Ross's "Why the Universe is the Way it Is". It gives incredible, actually irrefutable, evidence that the Universe was not only created by a god, but the God of the Bible.
Really? Irrefutable, eh? I have gone out and found some commentary and reviews on it already, and irrefutable is not the word I would use for what I'm seeing. So, let's set it up where you have to put your money where your mouth is. If I get it from the library, and I spend the time to write up another refutation, you will videotape yourself going in front of your congregation and publicly repudiating your religion and god, and place this video on youtube with enough information to verify that it is valid. Deal?
Second, if logic and reasoning are your thing, please look at the "Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle. I think you'll find this book both compelling and frustrating as it points out all of the flaws in your atheistic worldview. Both of these books helped me come to the realization that this universe was created by the God of the Bible.
Really? You are convinced by Lisle's, shall we say, invalid(or I can go ahead and call it willfully stupid) use of "laws of information science?" That explains a lot about you. Same deal as the other book. I can give you a taste, though. The statement "There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter" is a factually incorrect assertion. Even ignoring the biological events which he is directly referencing and which are the clearest counter-arguments to this nonsense(see Lenski's experiments for example), we have information being generated AND encoded from strictly physical processes, like geology. Of course, when your central assumption is that life is impossible without voodoo magic spirits, it becomes imperative that you ignore such things.
You're probably thinking "That's not fair! You're making me borrow/buy two different books? I wanted you to just give me evidence right here and right now, or accept defeat!" Sorry, friend. If you're truly an intellectual, you'll earnestly seek the truth by reading books that challenge your viewpoint.
Ah, I see. You think perhaps that I was not at one point a theist, and that I am somehow woefully ignorant of the inane ramblings that pass as intellectual discourse in the Creationist movement(yes, I know the movement in which your books are commonly used). How trite. Does it not occur to you that I have already been exposed to your nonsense, and in fact, a lot stronger versions of it than can be found in the books you've linked, and found it all wanting?
Plus, those texts point to further data, which is what you asked for: substantial data. So please, feel free to suggest your favorite pro-atheism books and I'll do just the same.
You don't need a "pro-atheism" book. You just need to remove your blinders and think. No book can teach you to do that.
Lastly, and I have to point this out, is that while you call for me to present evidence outside of just my 'feelings', I think you've forgotten that your atheistic views don't have any evidence outside of your own personal feel
Rape, are you sure? Read again. They were banned of any sexual relations with the people that was there.
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:17-18
Unless you think the taking virgin slaves for concubines is somehow consensual sex, then, yes, that's rape.
And does it says that anyone can claim to have heard God? It doesn't set any tests to any so called "prophet"? Nor penalties? And does Jesus and his disciples leave *any* room for anyone to do such a thing ever again?
I have no clue what you are talking about here. Please clarify.
It's true that you don't need to read what someone claims is source material for their ideas in order to accept or reject them, but you do need to if you are to engage in intelligent discussion. I don't think there's much of a chance for democracies without that.
I concede the point, if it is put this way: when faced with a monolithic, religious cultural force like Christianity, it is prudent to know their source books in order to attack them more successfully.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not try out a simple RPG with them, like the D&D Basic set from the 80s? My kids picked it up quick, and had fun with a loosely run fantasy dungeon. Of course, we went on to play some rather weird Call of Cthulhu scenarios, so my kids might not be representative of the general age group. If you are the DM, you still get to "read" the stories to them, but now they get to be active participants. If you have to, take a hammer to the rules and get rid of anything that the kids don't find fun. If you take the time to build up your own scenarios, you can even work in some real world logic skills and such. Plus, it can be a lead in to other fantasy/sci-fi series. Anyway, that's the direction I went, and it turned out well.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Or:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Reason and science are usually only tolerated as long as they do not threaten to undermine religious beliefs. The moment they do, then you see the irrational roots of religion shine through. The Catholic church, for example, is ok with evolution, until you point out that there was never a time where there was only two human beings. There are a few Eastern religions which I understand do not take this stance(Buddhism, if I am not mistaken), but it is the prevalent view in Western and Middle Eastern religions.
“Without it, we might as well slide back to the cave, because that’s where we’re headed right now — broke.”
It's rather pathetic that we are willing to waste untold amounts of resources on mindless violence, and yet let programs which could further our knowledge of the universe sit unused on the drawing board.
that were until relatively historicly recently, on the books and enforced in texas, kansas(my home state)
My condolences. I've been stuck in Kansas for 20 years, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Well, maybe the pope and Rick Santorum.
I still can't force myself to Believe, but at this point, I am seriously considering converting sheer practical benefits (hence why I'm posting anonymously)
So, you are willing to live a lie? Are you looking to be congratulated on that? I have news for you: (ir)religion is not the only basis for social gatherings. Find something else that interests you, and meet up with other people who like that. You think that religion is "verging on madness" and yet you are willing to try and live like that for the rest of your life? That, sir, is verging on madness.
You're referring to transubstantiation. It's really convoluted, and I'm not Catholic, but the opening of the Wiki article implies the physical attributes of the wine and bread aren't altered, even though the "substance" changes to that of Christ's flesh and blood (no idea what that means). My crude opinion is that they made up an invisible attribute so their crazy theory can't be proven wrong by a simple autopsy.
You are both both correct. Both of those churches teach that the Eucharistic species(bread and wine) changes into the actual body and blood of Jesus. The Orthodox generally take the Eucharist under both forms each time(usually a small piece of bread soaked in wine on a spoon), while the Catholic take only the bread(though it is becoming more common for there to be Eucharistic ministers who offer the wine as well). The Catholics believe that both the body and blood are represented in both species(not sure on the Orthodox belief here).
Now, the Orthodox are not going to use the term "transubstantiation" with their rejection of scholasticism, so they'd use the term "metousiosis." In either case, both churches(recognizing that church is a flexible word here) insulate themselves from actually having to prove such ludicrous claims by claiming that there is a difference between what a thing "IS" and what its physical properties are. Eucharistic miracles were commonly claimed in early Catholic tradition, often times in conjunction with a persecution of Jews, who were held to use consecrated hosts as victims in private rituals. This nonsense has cost real people their lives, and it's quite disgusting. Even today, Catholics get upset about host desecration(see PZ Myers' Crackergate).
I considered your characterizations for about .01 seconds (that'd be a value up to and including .0149999999..., to introduce you to basic math). I'm specifying it that way, incidentally, not because I can't specify it any more accurately, but because there is no necessary informational purpose to more accuracy considering the context.
Then I referred again to reality.
LOL, keep truckin' Chuck!
I scanned this for a single intellectually-honest response. Couldn't find one. So, clearly we are unable to meaningfully communicate. So, I'll just wait and let the 150-year 0% survival rate of your still-unsupported (beyond the mere name itself) Secular Humanism take care of it for me.
Yeah, I find it rough to talk to people with their heads as firmly planted rectally as you, too, although you are quite amusing, in your own infantile way. I'd say I'll wait for you to give up your childish beliefs, but statistically it is unlikely that you have the wit or drive to manage that much.
Unbelievable. Same exact mental pattern. No, OBVIOUSLY, making an -equivalent- prophecy.
Oh, sure. Here's one: no person will ever exhibit the powers of Superman. Here's another: no person will ever grow to be over 100 feet tall. Here's another: no man will ever be able to tell a mountain to cast itself into the sea and have it happen. How's that for equivalent? So far, in the last 10 seconds, I have amassed 6.8 billion data points, and it's only going to grow. Damn, this is fun! I should have taken up prophesy a long time ago! Perhaps if you weren't so blind, you'd see that your "prophesy" is just the same. There is no evidence at all that men ever lived to be hundreds or even tens of thousands(if you buy into Sumerian mythology) of years old. Yet, the oldest parts of your holy book clearly mention people hundreds of years old. So, the non-idiots of the world would look at your prophesy and say, "ah, here's an attempt by Jewish story tellers at an explanation for why these supposed ancients lived so long, and why no one lives that long now." And we'd look at the comparable lifespan of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, along with the general lifespans of mammals our size, and we'd point and laugh at people who think this is the result of some divine edict.
Obviously, I would know about "Saint" Calment. I'm not doing this exact same thread again I already did a month ago.
So, you are stupid enough to have been corrected a month ago, and yet still make the claim?
Suffice it to say--two significant digits were specified, all the billions fit within that specification, per how math always works for measurements. This is one of a half-dozen ways she fails to be a contradiction, but since it's absolutely clear you have the same personality type as that other guy did for a hundred posts, and will randomly switch topics and evade the entire way along each individual line of argument, claiming that since you're still talking irrelevantly about at least one of them, you've met what's necessary for you to do with -all- the rationales, to establish a contradiction. Not going to do that again. "120", two significant digits, all of the billions fitting with in that, -one- statistical outlier across all time, not showing it inaccurate, but actually illustrating its accuracy as an endpoint as specified.
Ah, so you retreat from your claim, start tossing out personal reasons as to why I'm going to find your claim silly, and then claim that your god's word is vague enough to include a certain measure of error. So, tell me, where does it say in your holy book exactly how much deviance we can expect from divine pronouncements? With the increase in medical knowledge and technique, people are living longer and longer. How long will your faith in this "prophesy" last when it becomes more common for people to exceed 120?
I weight them all, as is appropriate, according to the context. If Joseph Smith had martyred himself for a particular belief, rather than living a life of a self-interested scam artist, that would have weight quite heavily as a significant factor.
So, you aren't evaluating the prophesies themselves, and their likelihood of being valid, but rather by the subjective behavior of the prophet? No wonder you are so screwed up.
I use basic, logical criteria to evaluate things, same as everyone does when not evading as you are now.
Liar. You use specious reasoning and selective observation to rationalize the beliefs you already have.
I was once very close to considering myself Objectivist, and would easily outclass you if I were arguing your side of atheism
Outclass me? LOL, you are barely even coherent! You hop from "I'm sure that I'll live forever," to "the fact that people have a lower average lifespan than mythical characters from my holy book is proof that god exists." In case you haven't notice
He would have no market if no one was alive either. Yes there are some fundamental physical needs, but they are miniscule comparatively speaking, but as technology changes so does our need for resources. We can go on, to the limits of the universe and how there's a certain amount of energy per bit needed, but those are extremes, we have along way to go to reach any meaningful limitation.
I honestly don't see what you are missing here. You stated that
liberals believe there's finite amount of wealth to be had, and that's just not true.
The opposite of finite is infinite. So, you claimed that there is an infinite amount of wealth. As we pointed out, this is ludicrous. Your example illustrates this completely. A person cannot create wealth(at least, real wealth, as one can always "print money", though that doesn't represent an increase in wealth) without utilizing natural resources, either directly or indirectly. Software is just piggybacking, if you will, on top of the physical devices it runs on.
And the real point of this thread is that you can't just keep increasing your use natural resources and expect them to last forever. Some regenerate(like wood and food, albeit sometimes too slowly) and some are damaged irreparably by overuse(like overfishing and large scale pollution). There is a cost, in entropy, for everything you do or create. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to make note of this physical fact of the universe. And we are seeing it. Sure, if you look at a big enough picture, the market will correct itself. After all, when a significant number of humans have died from war and lack of resources, there will be a correspondingly smaller demand. Some of us are not keen on waiting until the who nest is fouled before we start looking at how much we are shitting everywhere.
Going back, his wealth is dependent on software, yes there are some physical aspects, there are atoms that have be moved, but nothing physical is made.
Good so far. Now, take it to its logical conclusion. If those "physical aspects" aren't there to allow for Bill's software to run, what value can he offer to trade for wealth? The answer is zero. In Bill's case, his wealth was built on PCs. You remove any of the "physical aspects" in question, and his software is completely useless. All the software mankind can write is useless if we don't have devices to run it on, and electricity to power it. The existence of utilized natural resources in a very specific configuration is the only thing that allows Bill to sell anything at all. If he didn't have someone else create something from natural resources, he would have no market.
Hence, the point: all wealth is ultimately based on natural resources.
The richest man in thew world is rich because he creates nothing from natural resources, Bill Gates, who's wealth depends on software.
Are you daft? Let connect the dots. You see the physical device that you just used to post this moronic statement? That was built from natural resources. Oh, and the electricity which is used to run that piece of hardware? Generated by utilizing(and likely burning) natural resources. So, no, Bill Gates' wealth is entirely dependent on natural resources.
Except that some ingenious fellow creates an alternative fuel that is cost effective and makes a fortune.
Ah, yes, an appeal to magic. The availability of natural resources is completely unrelated to the ability for your "ingenious fellow." It will just "poof" into existence regardless!
Seriously, you need to pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate.
I am saying, as clearly as it is in your own mind, since you've denigrated prophecy, I suggest backing that up by doing something even very marginally as notable, or acknowledge the much more difficult example is, in fact, notable.
Look at this sentence. It makes no fucking sense in the least. As notable as what? Making a prophesy? Sure thing: tomorrow, some idiot will kill someone else over religion. Here's another: at some point in the future, there will be an earthquake. Here's another: at some point in the future, there will be a war. Hot damn, I'm a prophet! Someone get me a TV show on TBN and have the sheep starting sending in cash, cause it's time for a fleecing!
The maximum lifespan of man, to the accuracy offered, as "120 years", has held true for the millenia from the time the limit was declared/predicted and written in Genesis to this very moment, over billions of people. As such, it is not subject to retroactive correction or anyone acting, intentionally or otherwise, such as to fulfill the prediction. It is beyond the scope of any individual or collective action to do that.
Oops, your god has failed again: The oldest verified person ever is Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122 years 164 days. Source
So, what, now that you've argued that the limit was 120 years, are you going to move the goalposts? Either Jeanne violated your god's edict by living too long, or it was never a hard limit in the first place. In either case, your "prophesy" is proven to be as wrong as everything else you believe.
I was further noting how your "explanation" isn't viable for a broad range of prophecies. It simply defies common sense to assert that both a) a person is actively "faking" or "forcing self-fulfillment" to a prophecy, as that choice presumes that they know their religion is false, and b) they would cause or allow their own death to support it, knowing that. This situation is not analogous to the situations and forms of support of belief you are referencing.
Bullshit. Which prophesies do you want to acknowledge as true? The Mormon ones? Jehovah's Witnesses? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Seventh Day Adventists? The various and sundry "Evangelical" Christian prophecies? If you had the brains to study your own tripe, you'd know that ALL of those groups have claimed to have made and fulfilled prophesies. And that's only the few I thought of off the top of my head, and doesn't even count the written prophesies of the various "holy books." Hell, it doesn't even include any non-Christian prophets! It's universally stupid. Either they are precise and end up failing(like yours did), or they are so vague that they are entirely open to whatever interpretation one would care to apply and thus can never be objectively fulfilled(like the turgid nonsense of the Christian book of Revelation).
You've managed to drag this out quite a bit, for a situation where objectively speaking, both according to your worldview, -and- my worldview, your side of the discussion could offer neither me nor anyone anything
Well, you are correct here. Once one is sufficiently brainwashed by religion, it's rare that one ever manages to overcome their dogmatic biases.
(given, if you're wrong, your position offers nothing, and if you're right, your position offers nothing--because there would be no valid content to the domain under discussion). Given that from both our perspectives your stance is worth a maximum possible of nothing--are we done now?
Yes, a realistic worldview, based on an empiric evaluation and understanding of the universe, is not likely to appear to offer anything to foolish idiots caught up in the false majesty of fairy tales and bloody tales of divine vengeance. It's far too civilized a worldview to appeal to those enthralled with bronze age blood gods and their milquetoast progeny.
Look, fool, I don't have time to explain how causality or time work to you.
Judging by your posts so far, I doubt that you would be up to the task of explaining anything.
If you think he can predict the age of your death alone, over a mere few decades, as opposed to that "nomad" getting the age right across billions of people, over future millenia, then try it.
Who is "he?" Are you suggesting that Dawkins is a prophet? Really, is this supposed to be a cogent train of thought?
If you're unclear that the prediction is -still being validated-, in an ongoing empirical fashion, allowing neither the possibility of "retroactive correction of the prediction" nor "acting such that the prediction will be the case"--then, well, as you've demonstrated in a number of cases, you just need to be able to think better.
Oh, yeah, it's still being validated? You'll have to be more specific on what particular cult you are a part of if you expect me to be able to pin down what nonsense you are speaking about.
In the alternative, if you think people are/were willing to say, "Okay, well, we have to fake this prediction, so, well, I'll assume the religion's false, but I'm going to go ahead and deliberately get killed for it anyway", do it, or drop it.
Do what? Fake a prophesy and get killed for it? No thanks, I'll leave that you lame ass religionists. Perhaps you ought to take a look around yourself. Do you not see the fools who follow every half baked preacher who rails about the end times? Do you not see the cults of all flavors, teeming with prophecies and miracle claims? Do you not see that, no matter what sect you belong to, there is a branch of your own religion which denies what you believe? The myth building, the reinterpretations, the syncretistic cult building, it's all still going on today! Only a true fool doesn't realize that it was going on thousands of years ago, as well.
Just letting you have what you insist on. Maybe you should have Dawkins predict when that'll be, and tailor the event for it.
Are you even trying to make any sense now? LOL
Yawn. Okay, just die.
LOL, now you are sounding positively Christian!
Who's talking about being "unbounded"? Here's a peer-reviewed medical study in the Lancet, quantifying eye-witness accounts of post-death phenomena directly corresponding to theistic metaphysics.
Congratulations. You turned out to be even stupider than I thought initially. This is about the dumbest study I've had the misfortune of reading. I mean, fucking read it:
Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE; although all patients had been clinically dead, most did not have NDE.
This in no way precludes that medical factors didn't account for NDEs, any more than the fact that not all snake bite victims freaking die precludes venom from being life threatening. Talk about a massive non sequitur. But it gets even better!
These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.
Oh, look, a blind fucking assertion! Not surprising that you find it so compelling, since you spout off the same failing logic.
Hell, those problems were just from my cursory reading. A few moments on google would help you see a lot more(not that I think you are remotely interested in actually testing your beliefs). Hell, they make their bias explicit when they equated "positive change" with "more religious." Hey, Beavis, do you think that their sloppy methodology might be a result of their desire to shoehorn the results into the framework they already believed? I think maybe so, Butthead.
and that you have no such alternative leprechaun study
Bullshit. I have a backlog of centuries of leprechaun stories. And fairies, and everything else. Far more anecdotal evidence that you can possibly deny.
You know as clearly in your own brain that the two aren't equivalent -even to you-, which is why you attempt this whole line of rhetorical nonsense.
Oh, this should be good. Let's see why you think I'm lying!
If -you yourself- believed them equivalent, there is no reason simply not to use the standard terminology of "God", confident in an equal degree of automatic derision and incredulity in your "audience".
Oh, look, fucking gibberish! Because I don't use the right terminology, therefore magic brain soul? God damn(there, am I using the terminology you apparently think is fucking relevant at all), you make no sense at all.
You don't do that, because, as a measure of your lack of intellectual honesty, you need, and assert, that they are the same conceptually, knowing fully well in your own mind they are not as the only reason for even starting your attempted rhetorical "comparison".
So, following your breathtakingly inane example of a non sequitur, you engage in weapons grade projection! Good job, nitwit! Is this really the best you can do, even in a throw away /. row?
That's your "analysis"? That's just pathetically content-free, as well as presuming your own experience as the definition of "empirical", both of which have a level of validity that would get you laughed out of any Philo 101 class. You can do better.
That wasn't an analysis, you pinhead. Of course I can do better. There's a reason why I didn't bother filing the paperwork for the minor in philosophy that I qualified for. Because, aside from symbolic logic, once I spent some serious time studying metaphysics, I realized that it was fucking useless. The only alternative to empiricism is to deny it by engaging in some level of Cartesian doubt, which is dead end(if you
I don't make it up. I do, in fact, know.
Just as I do, in fact, know that we are all actually just vehicles for invisible green leprechauns(yes, they are both invisible and green because I have asserted it as true), who crawl out of our arses when we die. They go on to attend a sumptuous pot luck dinner at the center of the Earth, which is catered by a mystical talking capybara. After getting some Thai massages from the personification of irrational numbers, they crawl up the ass of a baby as it is in the birth canal, and start the process over. This is why it is a logical certainty that kids born by C-section are soulless monsters.
Geez, it's almost like you can invent any damned thing you like when you are unbound by empirical observation!
And you have absolutely no possible way to know otherwise, as a -formal certainty of epistemology-, other than as a claim to psychic abilities on your part. But since you cannot verify my claim, and your statement as a claim to knowledge otherwise is provably a falsehood, I'll just say... I'll take that bet.
And since you cannot disprove my claim, you must accept it as at least as true as yours. I'll take that bet!
"Simplistic" as opposed to what, you offering none at all? Pick something less "simplistic", then, I'll take you apart on any stance, secular or theological, you like. Throwing in empty characterization to substitute for an actual argument isn't any more convincing to me than it is to you.
The empirical analysis of the universe is what I offered. Are you completely daft, or is English just not your primary language?
Thanks for directly admitting a complete void of any usable stance, then. Saves time. You couldn't do otherwise anyway, may as well move things along.
So, what are the options here? You are either:
A. Suffering from periodic blindness which prevented you from reading the next two sentences in my response, or
B. Ignoring the next two sentences because the existence of secular humanism refutes your main point, or
C. You are a liar by omission.
Evidence-free conjecture,
Why, if it were so, it would be on par with your groundless assertions. Project much, do you?
but I invite you to try it yourself, with an individual selected yourself. Then justify them from your own stance, in some way, already. You could at least make an argument that they might increase their adherents' DNA propagation rates, rather than airy nothing backing it that could address a simple "why?".
Yup, you are apparently too blinkered to even acknowledge the existence, for many, many years, of secular humanists.
Then point out your real-world test case, where your half-constructed worldview has worked successfully. Should be easy enough to do, if your argument had any merit.
Sure thing. I point out EVERY FUCKING SECULAR HUMANIST WHO IS ALIVE. Christ on a stick, you people are dense! This is why the US has to have things like Reason Rally, because fucktards like you can't be arsed to even acknowledge that there are people who have fully functional philosophical and ethical systems which are not based on your primitive and masturbatory theological ramblings! Shit, this is why we heap scorn on your anally-inserted heads!
And, no, it doesn't scare me in the least, nor is there the slightest sensible reason it could, as, if you haven't noticed, even apart from the expectations of my metaphysics, it's my subculture that is easily numerically and politically dominant--and if I were to limit myself to your position, it is clearly -your- worldview, from say, a Darwinian standpoint, that actually has reason to feel such a reaction.
Why am I not surprised that you are unaware of the statistics regarding the demographics of believers versus non-believers in the US and world population, vis-a-vis the rise of non-religionists and the shrinking base of hardcore dogmatists? Hell, it evens fits into the general apocalyptic persecution narrative you twits are so fond of.
Well, if you consider the knowledge means I'll have eternal life, and you'll just be inevitably "naturally deselected" as you claw for a few seconds more like a dog dying in an alley...
Or maybe our souls will both be weighed by Anubis to determine our fates. Or maybe we'll end up in Vahalla. Isn't it fun to generate "knowledge" by making it up as you go? Congrats on that sound footing.
In fact, I would propose to you that the very basis upon which you gauge and infer the future of the world around you, is based very much, both informationally and methodologically, on theism--entirely whether you choose to admit it or not.
Utter dipshittery. The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is.
You see, I do not credit atheism with any functional system of behavioral norms whatsoever of its own--merely a provisional, self-contradictory approximation of one, for people for which it exists at all, that is based on indirect cultural assimilation of theism's cultural influence. I'll change my stance on this when, for the first time in history, atheism actually -generates- a coherent, sustainable set of behavioral norms that are not merely "the opposite of whatever theism says on the topics I feel like applying that to".
Atheism does not presuppose any sort of behavioral norms, sans those which are intrinsically tied to religion. I mean, you'd have to consider something like secular humanism for that. But then, the every existence of secular humanism disproves your whole point, doesn't it?
If you asked them, independently, to write down their own Top 5 ethical axioms (even ones they know they cannot justify beyond pure subjectivity), I guarantee there would be essentially no correlation with regard to what they are -for-, independent of reference to theism.
Rubbish. They would be pointing out things like the ethic of reciprocity, the freedom of self determination, the freedom from slavery, etc. None of which require your silly theistic beliefs to justify. Are you really so lost in the dark that you've not paid attention to what they(and many like them) have been writing for decades, hell, millenia, now?
If you theists weren't busy mentally masturbating with theology, you might actually learn that the world doesn't need your cosmological boogeyman to either deduce ethics or run a civilization. If that doesn't scare you shitless, it should. Because one day, if you lunatics don't manage to take the human race with you in your insanity, your whole religion and worldview will be just another footnote that kids will learn from dusty old books on mythology.
Well, that was certainly a long reply. Thanks for that Creedo. I would like to speak with you more about this as you seem to have a need to take your anger of religion out on me.
I was not aware that I was. You are not a captive audience, so you are free to cease reading at any time.
Tell me, were you raised as a Roman-Catholic (I only ask because of the passionate way you have been responding to my religious beliefs specifically)? You could message me if you do not feel comfortable stating this in a public forum.
My conversion story is public. As you might surmise from my familiarity with RCC dogma, I was raised Catholic. Many a year was wasted in that church. Indeed, I was considering graduate work to begin a life of ministry when I came to my senses.
In reference to my beliefs, I will offer no defense because, as I stated to you in the last reply, my faith is mine (which is something the Catholic church actually does understand and accept.
You could always ask the SSPX how a difference in theology is viewed from the hierarchy. Or the various groups ordaining women. Or the syncretistic religions of the southern hemisphere. I could go on. The RCC has never been friendly to anything they viewed as heretical or heterodox.
You claim to have read the Bible from cover to cover (though this makes no sense considering the Christian Bible isn't meant to be read in that format)
This strikes me as odd. Why would I not read the bible when I was Catholic? The basic thought is not to say that I followed it like a curriculum, but rather that I am more than passingly familiar with the contents, which is something you will notice a lot of Christians assume is not true when speaking with non-believers.
have you ever taken the time to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Of course, many times. One does not engage in Catholic apologetics without having one on hand.
You might find some useful information that would help you to continue to hate Catholics or might open you up to understand why I don't need to lie to the church to be faithful).
I don't hate Catholics. I don't hate many people at all(and none of those few for reasons relating to their religion). I do, however, hate the systems of beliefs which you are a part of, and which enslave so many people.
Your comment about me feeling as though I have no right to question others beliefs, you claim to be superficial and that it would be easy to make me act as though my beliefs were better, If you truly knew me, you might find your opinion different
Try it on as a mental challenge. Envision the worst litany of atrocities that you can stomach. Now, envision a belief system which celebrates those acts. I can tell you right now, it's trivial to imagine such a system and to declare that my beliefs are better. Unless you are a bona fide sociopath, I would wager that it would be trivial for you as well. And there is a reason for that. Our morality is not a purely relative construct. Rather, it is based on biology at its deepest root, and our basic social interactions at a more intelligible level. That's why most religions have similar in-group dynamics. These are human morals, not religious, atheist or otherwise. And while there is a wide latitude in moral reasoning, aside from sociopathic outliers, there are general boundaries. Whale, prairie dogs, wolves and chimpanzees(to name a few random species which popped into my head) all have their respective social structures and, likewise, the respective intergroup behavior processes we call morality in humans.
(though I am not certain you would be the type of person open enough to be willing to do that which would be no different than the bible-thumping people I grew up around (I was not raised Roman-Catholic).
I am always will
Actually Creedo, my beliefs are my own. They are not for you or the Roman-Catholic Church.
I frankly have no interest in what you do or do not believe. However, you claim allegiance to an organization which emphatically does care what you believe, and indeed builds a profession of belief into their primary ritual, the Mass. It is also a requirement for participation in the Eucharist to agree with their doctrine and dogma. If you are cool with lying to them, so be it.
If you spoke to people openly (assuming they were willing to do so with you), you may find that most only believe in portions of their religion while not all at the same time.
Do you find it to be some amazing revelation that most people are hypocrites when it comes to their religion? I do not.
With that in mind, realize that I reside in the Roman-Catholic faith for my own reason (not theirs). I labeled myself a Henotheist because I truly feel that we all worship something
This is false. We do not all worship anything, unless you water down the meaning of the word "worship" until it is utterly useless.
and who am I (one singular person) to believe that my beliefs are better than yours or anyone's.
Your relativism is amusing, but superficial. I bet it would be trivial to get you to act as though your beliefs were better. This is also another break between you and your church. They most certainly do claim that their beliefs are superior to all others, going so far as to claim that a deity is actively protecting them from teaching error.
As for studying society in a religious framework for the last five-years (actually, I've been doing it for much longer, but my degree work has only been in the last five), yes. I feel that by having a better understanding of how culture relates to each other through something as indoctrinated as religion, perhaps one day the world will be more understandable in my own eyes.
A laudable goal. Perhaps you would be more successful if you didn't engage in polysyllabic patronizing commentary on random blogs.
You comments, while seemingly meant to be offensive were taken only as your attempt to disregard my opinion on Circlewell's comment. What I do not understand is your need to insult.
Given the condescending tone of your initial post, is it any surprise that I replied in the same vein?
I have not sought to diminish you in your beliefs (truly your beliefs are as valid or invalid as Circlewell's even if they seek to show you as someone who believes that he is better than others in some way because your beliefs are different).
And yet you diminish both of our beliefs(and your own, not to mention the church you profess to be a member of) by ignoring the very real differences in both how they are derived and how grounded they are in any form of logic or empiricism.
What right do you have to do so with mine?
I am no respecter of beliefs or ideas. They are all fodder for dissection and attack. If you can't handle that, then why do you even make the pretense of doing post-graduate work? Do you not have to defend your ideas?
Ah, I see, and apologize for my off the cuff response. That, indeed, is a good idea :)
Ah yes, the atheist defense: "Do all the work and find the evidence, and I will judge with my superior human wisdom if it's true."
If I were postulating the existence of invisible monsters running the universe, I, too, would be compelled to actually present evidence before expecting someone to take me seriously. Apparently, bronze age blood gods are exempt from this policy in some minds. I also note that you didn't bother to defend some of the disgusting acts your god commanded and condoned. Unsurprising in the least.
Fine then. I'm going to point you to two books to get you started.
If physics, mathematics, and astronomy are your thing, I invite you to read Hugh Ross's "Why the Universe is the Way it Is". It gives incredible, actually irrefutable, evidence that the Universe was not only created by a god, but the God of the Bible.
Really? Irrefutable, eh? I have gone out and found some commentary and reviews on it already, and irrefutable is not the word I would use for what I'm seeing. So, let's set it up where you have to put your money where your mouth is. If I get it from the library, and I spend the time to write up another refutation, you will videotape yourself going in front of your congregation and publicly repudiating your religion and god, and place this video on youtube with enough information to verify that it is valid. Deal?
Second, if logic and reasoning are your thing, please look at the "Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle. I think you'll find this book both compelling and frustrating as it points out all of the flaws in your atheistic worldview. Both of these books helped me come to the realization that this universe was created by the God of the Bible.
Really? You are convinced by Lisle's, shall we say, invalid(or I can go ahead and call it willfully stupid) use of "laws of information science?" That explains a lot about you. Same deal as the other book. I can give you a taste, though. The statement "There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter" is a factually incorrect assertion. Even ignoring the biological events which he is directly referencing and which are the clearest counter-arguments to this nonsense(see Lenski's experiments for example), we have information being generated AND encoded from strictly physical processes, like geology. Of course, when your central assumption is that life is impossible without voodoo magic spirits, it becomes imperative that you ignore such things.
You're probably thinking "That's not fair! You're making me borrow/buy two different books? I wanted you to just give me evidence right here and right now, or accept defeat!" Sorry, friend. If you're truly an intellectual, you'll earnestly seek the truth by reading books that challenge your viewpoint.
Ah, I see. You think perhaps that I was not at one point a theist, and that I am somehow woefully ignorant of the inane ramblings that pass as intellectual discourse in the Creationist movement(yes, I know the movement in which your books are commonly used). How trite. Does it not occur to you that I have already been exposed to your nonsense, and in fact, a lot stronger versions of it than can be found in the books you've linked, and found it all wanting?
Plus, those texts point to further data, which is what you asked for: substantial data. So please, feel free to suggest your favorite pro-atheism books and I'll do just the same.
You don't need a "pro-atheism" book. You just need to remove your blinders and think. No book can teach you to do that.
Lastly, and I have to point this out, is that while you call for me to present evidence outside of just my 'feelings', I think you've forgotten that your atheistic views don't have any evidence outside of your own personal feel
I'm sorry, what makes you think that I believe in the antagonist of your fairy tale just because I don't believe in the protagonist?
Rape, are you sure? Read again. They were banned of any sexual relations with the people that was there.
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:17-18
Unless you think the taking virgin slaves for concubines is somehow consensual sex, then, yes, that's rape.
And does it says that anyone can claim to have heard God? It doesn't set any tests to any so called "prophet"? Nor penalties? And does Jesus and his disciples leave *any* room for anyone to do such a thing ever again?
I have no clue what you are talking about here. Please clarify.
It's true that you don't need to read what someone claims is source material for their ideas in order to accept or reject them, but you do need to if you are to engage in intelligent discussion. I don't think there's much of a chance for democracies without that.
I concede the point, if it is put this way: when faced with a monolithic, religious cultural force like Christianity, it is prudent to know their source books in order to attack them more successfully.