RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact.

RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 4:30:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19 “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) So I am wondering how many of those people who claim to be Christians do eat pork, shellfish, wear mixed fiber and all that, because they should all be stoned to death for it, because Jesus claimed he wants to uphold the old laws... He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 K.

MrRodgers -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 4:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers In fact for me, Jesus, Moses Mohammed are just that for me...moral philosophers. But RO...nothing more. I have nothing against the guys (even if a few of their teachings are a bit bloodthirsty for me and would land them in jail now) but they all seem to attract a fan club that's more than a bit unhinged and quite worrying... .....that's the ignorance of the moral philosophy that I think takes over and they put 'god' in there somewhere. "Well my god tells me to do this....." It's the same with the 'god' of profits. My 'god' tells me I can do everything necessary to maximize a profit outside of but then report my profits [in] Ireland and hide my profits offshore, I can eliminate all of those $10/hr jobs and go to China to replace them with .50/hr jobs and even shirk spending money on mine and oil platform safety and commit corp. manslaughter...for a higher profit. Mainly you see, because MY god of profits...has no morals at all. That's also why I have always believed that god didn't create man...man created god. Then man goes about acting in the 'name of HIS god' and blood (and money) almost always starts to flow. I just watched a 1 hr. documentary on Deepwater (well blow up) and it was all about BP and the challenge of plugging it. Not one mention of the 11 dead that preceded all of that. And oh BTW, since Deepwater...nothing has changed except that much damage still remains. No great regulatory reckoning ever took hold from Deepwater. (no morals) Oh and the same thing in the Caspian Sea and in Mexico, no changes, people dead, millions of tons of oil in the ocean, the press kept out, business and profits...back to normal. (no morals...so where is the 'christian' i.e., religious outrage ?)

LadyConstanze -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 4:42:32 PM)
That concept also is sometimes called "deus ex machina" I completely agree with you about man creating god, I think it comes from a fear to admit that when it's over it's over, and it has been exploited over millennia, I mean what better way to keep people in order and have them do whatever you want them to do than giving them the belief of an afterlife, so this life you can suffer and all that, you get your reward after you died, however if you don't dance to the tune of your religious leaders, you will burn in hell until eternity, effing brilliant way to manipulate people with fear and a carrot.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 4:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19 “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) So I am wondering how many of those people who claim to be Christians do eat pork, shellfish, wear mixed fiber and all that, because they should all be stoned to death for it, because Jesus claimed he wants to uphold the old laws... He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 K. Really? He doesn't seem to specify it, he says law, as law in the OT, where exactly does it specify that he only means the 10 commandments? You best lay off pork, shellfish and mixed fiber...

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 5:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 Really? He doesn't seem to specify it, he says law, as law in the OT, where exactly does it specify that he only means the 10 commandments? You best lay off pork, shellfish and mixed fiber... How clear does it have to be? For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do... Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother... ~Mark 7:8; Mark 10:19 K.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 6:02:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 Really? He doesn't seem to specify it, he says law, as law in the OT, where exactly does it specify that he only means the 10 commandments? You best lay off pork, shellfish and mixed fiber... How clear does it have to be? For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do... Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother... ~Mark 7:8; Mark 10:19 K. Where does it say it is only the 10 commandments? And obviously I am not even getting into the fact that mark was a follower of Peter, not one of the original Apostles, and he probably never knew Jesus. So pretty much hearsay or invention, care to come back with facts?

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 6:14:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 Really? He doesn't seem to specify it, he says law, as law in the OT, where exactly does it specify that he only means the 10 commandments? You best lay off pork, shellfish and mixed fiber... How clear does it have to be? For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do... Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother... ~Mark 7:8; Mark 10:19 Where does it say it is only the 10 commandments? How clear does it have to be? It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say... ~Matthew 5:31-32 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say... ~Matthew 5:33-34 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say... ~Matthew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say... ~Matthew 5:43-44 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say... ~Matthew 12:5-6 K.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 6:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata He is talking about the Ten Commandments, not the laws of Leviticus. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. ~Matthew 22:36-38 Really? He doesn't seem to specify it, he says law, as law in the OT, where exactly does it specify that he only means the 10 commandments? You best lay off pork, shellfish and mixed fiber... How clear does it have to be? For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do... Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother... ~Mark 7:8; Mark 10:19 Where does it say it is only the 10 commandments? How clear does it have to be? It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say... ~Matthew 5:31-32 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say... ~Matthew 5:33-34 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say... ~Matthew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say... ~Matthew 5:43-44 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say... ~Matthew 12:5-6 K. OK how DENSE are you? None of it explicitly says the 10 commandments, NONE, did that all escape you or are you deliberately blind to it? Again, look up, all your Evangelists weren't even there, you have no freaking evidence that your guy Jesus actually really existed, at the time there were a bunch of saviours roaming around, the Romans, best book keepers of all times, they have no written evidence about him. Yup, some of the guys writing fantasy stories might have repeated stuff from the 10 commandments, however others said he came to uphold the laws of the prophets, which includes the OT. So you are cherry picking fantasy and mythology. Great job, real solid evidence

ManOeuvre -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 6:53:38 PM)
Have you ever considered if it's true? All of it, and not a word out of place? Next VS Fashion show, or during half-time, Joshua Christ the first shows up, floats down with a glowing head, a flowing robe and proclaims Testament III: Judgement day? Do your knees really bend that way? While you're repenting, I'll be building a cross and heat-treating some nails, to see if I can banish this thing for another 2000 years. I'd rather spend eternity burning and boiling with men and women who stood to their full height that spend 5 minutes listening to "Movement most Nimbal for 3000 Harps" with the credulous cretins who cowered their lives away in pathetic prostration. What kind of man submits to that crap? The thoughtcrime of covetousness? Who would you have in your strata council for the next million meetings? The pygmies who pray to some sky-pilot or the beshouldered giants who said "homey don't play dat!" In fact, mate, it's fiction. In practice, perfidious. In theory: immoral, and rather invidious.

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 7:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Again, look up, all your Evangelists weren't even there, you have no freaking evidence that your guy Jesus actually really existed, at the time there were a bunch of saviours roaming around, the Romans, best book keepers of all times, they have no written evidence about him. Yup, some of the guys writing fantasy stories might have repeated stuff from the 10 commandments, however others said he came to uphold the laws of the prophets, which includes the OT. So you are cherry picking fantasy and mythology. Great job, real solid evidence You can't argue the text, so now it's my guy Jesus? Fuck you and your mind-reading act. K.

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 7:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Have you ever considered if it's true? All of it, and not a word out of place? Next VS Fashion show, or during half-time, Joshua Christ the first shows up, floats down with a glowing head, a flowing robe and proclaims Testament III: Judgement day? [...] In fact, mate, it's fiction. Well in fact, mate, I never claimed it was true. So what's your game? Another mind-reading act? K.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 7:46:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the challenge I put on the table on the first page was for someone to demonstrate how or what genetics has to do with religion. Do you have the answer because I have a really hard time stretching my imagination that far? Time to start some stretching exercises then. The link below cites three different twin studies: The Genetics of Religious Belief The take home message from these studies is that genetic factors play a significant role in individual religious beliefs and behaviors. Shared environmental (familial) experiences have a key contribution during childhood and adolescence but wane over time. A fourth twin study is reported here... Study Shows Genetics Plays Role in Religious Inclination The recent study focused on adult twins who were raised apart who were then compared for their religiousness. The study suggests that genes contribute 40% of the variability of a person's religiousness. The study referenced above appeared in the Journal of Personality and is excerpted here. K. well I have to call bullshit since there are only opinions of studies not the studies themselves and the conclusions appear highly speculative. This to me was the equivalent of reading the nist reports on 911 in which they too made grandiose leaps of ASSumptions, much of which today are proven bullshit. That said you need to produce an actual study that actually shows real data not just an opinion of an opinion.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 7:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Again, look up, all your Evangelists weren't even there, you have no freaking evidence that your guy Jesus actually really existed, at the time there were a bunch of saviours roaming around, the Romans, best book keepers of all times, they have no written evidence about him. Yup, some of the guys writing fantasy stories might have repeated stuff from the 10 commandments, however others said he came to uphold the laws of the prophets, which includes the OT. So you are cherry picking fantasy and mythology. Great job, real solid evidence You can't argue the text, so now it's my guy Jesus? Fuck you and your mind-reading act. K. I mostly stopped responding to LC because after seeing 6 out of 10 commandments listed its no leap of faith to conclude the meaning is the 10 commandments.

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 7:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the challenge I put on the table on the first page was for someone to demonstrate how or what genetics has to do with religion. Do you have the answer because I have a really hard time stretching my imagination that far? Time to start some stretching exercises then. The link below cites three different twin studies: The Genetics of Religious Belief The take home message from these studies is that genetic factors play a significant role in individual religious beliefs and behaviors. Shared environmental (familial) experiences have a key contribution during childhood and adolescence but wane over time. A fourth twin study is reported here... Study Shows Genetics Plays Role in Religious Inclination The recent study focused on adult twins who were raised apart who were then compared for their religiousness. The study suggests that genes contribute 40% of the variability of a person's religiousness. The study referenced above appeared in the Journal of Personality and is excerpted here. well I have to call bullshit since there are only opinions of studies not the studies themselves... Well then I have to assume that you don't know what links are, so let me help you out. [:)] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711848 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8871485&fileId=S1832427413000030 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23681197 K.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 8:38:13 PM)
Cambridge is your best link, but the problem I see is they need to do far more testing than just twins before they can put the genetic label on it even if only as far as heritibility, biological not withstanding. The test setup for the scope of something that large, and yes I realize they use their generic models, is deficient in that there are so many variables they have not accounted for which is not to say genetics has an absolute zero role but I would expect minuscule. In other words their tests are barely enough to lead one to believe their 'might' be something to it.

Real0ne -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 8:47:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You know RO, I read your stuff as I believe I've opined before, some of it is good research and informs, while some gives me a chuckle but this 'projection' and 'using govt.' and 'enforcing' all resulting in some sort of 'violation ?' Where do you get such unmitigated bullshit ? Well it does not change the fact that I laid the atheist 'lacking' theory to waste. First is it that you feel this is so outlandish why in the world would the constitutors reserve the right 'of religion' and the 'exercise' thereof if this were not a very serious problem? Why would they say exercise, which I presume you realize carries the meaning to 'act upon'. I believe the very concept of 'act upon' meaning that religion as taught, is [a] and espouses a moral code to live by, I would agree. In fact for me, Jesus, Moses Mohammed are just that for me...moral philosophers. But RO...nothing more. I believe people have full right to their beliefs but do not have a right to force them upon me or that their belief in their choice of moral philosophy, justifies the violation of anybody's equally endowed rights. But say when in govt. like we've seen, one must subjugate their moral beliefs of the individual to the law because the law represents a culmination of a community moral philosophy agreed upon by the community. When the latter breaks down, then you have the chaos (even anarchy) of everybody acting only and I mean only...upon their own individual moral beliefs and that's when society as a whole...breaks down. (ISIS, ME and Islam in general is going through this now) That's also why our founders were religious yet worked hard to form a nation of community laws, what many described as natural law and not religious law or tenets and...separated the two. Its much more. What you laid out is several elements of that make up the definition of religion. Your religion and the right to exercise it is reserved in the constitution, and you did it without even so much as one breath of a sky pilot. In fact that is exactly what they were and remain, moral philosophers and if you determine that they have the correct take on any one of those morals and follow it and exercise it, well, welcome to exercising your religion. Its not any different than a state adopting a law really, only you do it for yourself as your code to live by. your religion. Keep in mind anarchy has not a damn thing to do with 'chaos' or lawlessness. Several years ago I got a bug up my ass and got into philosophy and found I could not put down Kant. Of all the different material I have read I put his work as top shelf and very well woth the read (when you have about a year if you want to read all his work) Kant on anarchy: The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders."[1] Anarchy and political philosophy Kant on anarchy The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated anarchy in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of "Law and Freedom without Force". Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an "empty recommendation" if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic.[2][3] As summary Kant named four kinds of government: Law and freedom without force (anarchy). Law and force without freedom (despotism). Force without freedom and law (barbarism). Force with freedom and law (republic). Now as a further development today's anarchists for the most part agree there has to be force at some point because their has to be jails, but instead of 62 million laws governance would be done by court cases not short cuts and statutory tests which most often grossly prejudices remedy when dealing with the gubmint. Further more the ME and Islam have their courts so I have no idea what breakdown you are talking about, and ISIS like most groups along those lines withint even batting an eye or taking a peak you can bet the cia mi6 or any such other similar government organization is behind it. When you want to drag this into law that is a whole nutha avenue and I have no problem with community, however they are creating community law that has penalties for non-injury and you are living in a dream world if you think those laws are passed by the people. They are passed by the city council who inflicts their morals upon you like it or not and the only way you can change it is in a court and spend a lifetime fighting for all the freedom that has been usurped by those deciding our moral base for us, and then once its in like a shit stain its nearly impossible to get back out.

ManOeuvre -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 9:01:12 PM)
My bad, Kirata. I didn't mean it as a reply to you specifically. It was more of a hail mary pass into this forum. If a fellow athiest caught it, I was worried they might bet on Pascal, and if a more religiously minded poster had the softer hands, I had hoped to spark the discussion of whether or not the enterprise is a moral one, metaphysics themselves being irrelavent. I suppose I should have worded it more precisely. I see now that the phrase "considered if it's true" means rather different things depending upon the side from which one enters the ditch.

Kirata -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/22/2015 9:50:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre My bad, Kirata. I didn't mean it as a reply to you specifically. It was more of a hail mary pass into this forum. Thanks, very decent of you to explain. Forward in a friendly manner then! K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/23/2015 1:56:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne [....] atheists usually lack the required intellectual development to understand that lack of belief in a deity is the same as the belief that no deity exists, which in philosophy is called trying to make a distinction where no difference exists. I don't know whether a deity exists or not. I am open to the suggestion that one may exist but as of now I have not encountered any compelling reason to believe that one exists. My position is significantly different to that of a person who insists that no deity exists. I accept the possibility that a deity may exist, they deny this possibility categorically. Therefore the claim you advance, and upon which your argument relies in this thread is invalid. The claim I advanced was a response to a dispute by another member of my earlier statements. They are unable as in none of them are capable of advancing their claims against the claim I asserted. Apparently they are also illiterate since they seem to have a need to be taken in hand and walked through the process like I one needs to do to teach handicapped children. That said: The whole grade school argument that atheists by negatively stating 'lack of belief in the existence of God' has some kind of distinction from positively stating 'atheists believe there is no God' somehow absolves them of any responsibility or obligation and is most often used to promote their fanciful premise that atheism is not a religion because they lack belief is patently absurd if not a clear demonstration of a retarded intellect. [blah blah blah ......]. No philosophy needed to destroy the atheists childish intellectually illiterate level of thought that is so prevalently nonsensically used by atheists as a get out of jail free card. Personally I feel the drivel you have posted is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response. But I am interested to know how you are so certain that the question : "Does a deity exist?" is answerable rationally. How is it that humans, with our flawed and limited intellects, are able to determine the existence of some deity or force completely outside the limits of our existence? Particularly as there is no physical evidence to support an affirmative answer to the question. If one claims (as for example Christians do) that this deity is omnipotent eternal and omnipresent, why is there no physical evidence that can irrefutably prove the existence of this deity? And if said deity is in fact supernatural, how can humans whose knowledge and experience is limited to the 'natural' world, identify, and accurately attribute specific qualities* to this supernatural force? It is up to believers to present convincing answers to these questions if they wish to have their beliefs taken seriously. I am still awaiting a rational argument that might convince me that humans are capable of recognising a deity if one exists. OTOH there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that humans have a long and varied track record of creating/inventing deities regardless of whether they exist or not. *eg. omnipotence, eternal existence, ....... qualities that are outside the range of human experience and potential, 'supernatural' attributes.

thishereboi -> RE: Fatal Flaws in Religion versus Genetic/historic/scientific fact. (12/23/2015 2:26:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: You may be right but I think most people are going to be upset when anyone suggests any idea of theirs is silly. Human nature being what it is. I also think that's the reason so many athiests act like angry little children when people ignore their oh so sage advice about god. They just can't grasp the idea that they have told people there is no god and despite the fact that they keep crowing about how uber intelligent they are, people still ignore them and continue to worship. They have created huge websites going into detail about how every religion out there is wrong and people still don't listen to them. Must be very frustrating. Personally I am not sure why they care so much. They don't care, THB. But religionists really, really seem to need them to care. That's the true frustration in this whole thing and it belongs to the religionists. As for their being upset - well, not much we atheists can do about that. We just do find it silly and if they don't want to hear that, they're probably best advised not to ask in the first place. They certainly go to a lot of trouble to get the message out for a group that doesn't care but maybe you are right and they were just really bored and decided to create a website crowing about their intelligence. After all, who doesn't put a lot of time and energy into something they don't really care about. [8\|] As to everything being down to the "religionists" perhaps it would help if you defined what you mean by that. Kinda reminds me of another poster who blames everything on the 'nutsuckers'. Now he hasn't been able to define it, maybe you can do better.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375