RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette

RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

polyamorous -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 5:18:03 AM)
I do not believe in the God of the new or old testament. I believe there is a Higher Spirit we are all a part of, that we are all spiritual beings having a human experience. I believe that Higher Spirit wants us to be good stewards of the planet it provided us, everything on it and of each other.

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 5:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Rule. All I can assume from your spiritual inquiries is that you spend far too much time in the coffeeshops studying weed, it is the only explanation I have for your statements such 'you have to look for subjective evidence' There is nothing so dense said on this thread as that! lol. I laugh, but it is a sad laugh. I am sure that many people comprehend what I am saying. They know. It is those who do not comprehend wisdom who need to believe, for they can never know. I understand you, mc, but you do not understand me. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver After all, it would be all down to god, after all he is responsible and it isn't that great anyway because he could just click his fingers and it could be that much better and we really ought to be thankful for small mercies because he might smite us if we aren't. Sigh No, mc, the Divine merely facilitates our wishes, if possible (there are dud-wishes). "Ask and you will be given", does that ring a bell? So it is not the Divine that is responsible, but it is you who are responsible. As long as you do not click your fingers, nothing will happen. It is because of your lack of discrimination between concepts - your insistence on the use of the word God and your clinging to one specific religion and its doctrines - that you are so very confused in matters spiritual and theological. I note that you have not denied seeks' hypothesis that you have some serious religious trauma in your history. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver And I wish he'd tell us why we live only to die and then live elsewhere for eternity. Why are we given a sub-standard universe to live in when we could have gone straight to heaven? See, it doesn't make sense, it is absurd, however you look at it. The purpose is that we may grow spiritually - i.e. evolve spiritually - and that we may evolve as a species and as a civilization, mc. Each of us is doing important work as participants in an ongoing creation, even you. And it does make sense to me that we get points and detractions for our successes and failures. Indeed, your obstinacious blindness might be judged a success. On the other hand your worship of your local bar owner will not get you many points, I suspect; you may gain more points by worshipping LE.

NorthernGent -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 5:36:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou It's culture in my view, religion being a part of any particular culture. Ethnicity and culture are interwoven and as I stated in the above - religion is a component that often plays a key role in defining ethnicity. See all of the above examples and Serbs/Croats/Bosnian Muslims etc. Religion may be used as a tool by men. That is not the problem, the problem is that men(or women) are prone to want. And when a man wants something he uses what he can to get it. It's not the other way around. Not necessarily. The majority of the population are followers and can be blinded by propaganda to be led into situations which they would not get themselves into if a rational decision was taken in the cold light of day based on what humans actually need from life. Humans don't need to die in mass organised violence and I can't believe anyone sets their stall out to achieve death. I'm of the opinion that religion is not the reason why the US government is in Iraq but it is a tool which has been used to herd the masses into line. Think about the phrase "Islamo-fascists" - what do you take from this in terms of the origins of the phrase? What do you worship? Nothing. I'm uncomfortable with the excess that worship requires. Plus, I don't view the best way to lead my life as being subservient to an object of perceived superior status. Example it is irrational for Meat and ChainGang to bash religion even though they don't believe in it. Why? because you don't convince people by bashing them. You create hostility and anger. That is all. So in the end their efforts are for division, not unity like professed. I'm not seeing anyone "bashing" religion. I'm seeing a few people having a chat, sharing a few ideas, now and again it gets heated because that's the nature of religion - it tends to stoke up passions in people - but at the end of the day I imagine that when the thread is over it will be forgotten about. No big deal, no need for the drama. Personally, I think those claiming religion is being "bashed" are making a weak and not so subtle attempt to add credence to their argument. I could be wrong but that's my take on it. Out of interest, if someone expresses an opinion that they believe the belief in a non-specific deity is defeating the object of human existence and endeavour (i.e. self development/growth) then why do you think this is bashing religion? In my book, it is merely an opinion - take it or leave it. I'm still trying to figure out what they are trying to accomplish. It certainly isn't to help the other posters. As everything said was already known to I'd gander everybody already. Genuinely, I see this thread as no different to any other. Posters are exchanging a few opinions on a subject - some posters can take and give an opinion and others can't without it being seen as a personal attack. Providing it is kept civil and it doesn't cross the line into petty name calling I don't see why religion should be left unavailable to scrutiny.

NorthernGent -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 5:56:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Absolutely the purpose of this thread is to create division and foster hatred. Not here eyesopended. My own Mum is what is known in religious circles as devout. I mean a principled Christian rather than one of these pseudo-types who spout their virtues and then get right behind the government who send the machines in to maim civilians. You'll appreciate I don't hate my own Mum. Getting rid of religion, will not end war. Period. Correct but I don't see anyone offering an opinion to the contrary. If you haven't read my posts on religion and ethnicity feel free to have a look and comment.

Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 5:58:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Think about the phrase "Islamo-fascists"... Exactly. To answer NG's suggestion directly, the term Islamo is clearly intended to note Islam and otherness because we are culturally supposed to be Christians, fascist is the usual term of disparagement. In sum, it is a religiously intolerant phrase slanted negatively. The elephant in the room is the culturally embedded idea of the Christian god, and many here want to act as if it didn't exist and the "extreme views" expressed by some Christians shouldn't be held against them. The problem isn't that there are statues of Odin in the park, but rather that last month it would not have been odd to find a nativity scene in front of city hall. There is a very serious Christian cultural bias in the nations of Europe and the Americas. The fact that such bias is openly tolerated leaves the door wide open for the more extreme Christian viewpoints. As a person well-read in English I can tell you that you can't even understand much of English literature without a strong foundation in biblical ideas. Many things like Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Mallory, etc are only comprehensible through the lens of a Christian worldview. Now whereas this bias doesn't bother me at all in the literature of centuries past it does bother me when used rhetorically to champion certain ideas relevant to current events, as noted by NG. What is so clever about the example is the way it passes through everyday speech without notice - but it needs to be noticed and abandoned as a deeply bigoted term.

seeksfemslave -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:21:41 AM)
Someone, I think Meatcleaver, again, said that Scientists welcome investigation into their area of expertise. Some do, many dont. You clearly have never heard Ding Dong Dawkins, the wild Natural Selectioner, in full cry when addressing his critics have you ? Meatcleaver, I suggest you take a deep breath, make a cup of tea or whatever you prefer and simply have a little think about human biology and the chemistry that underlies it. If that doesnt open your mind to the possiblity that there may exist something out there nothing will. That something almost by definition will be outside our intellectual domain and may only be approached by inferrence by such as me, a half arsed scientific type, even very clever scientific types or as some claim by personal revelation.ie believers of different Hues. I am not asking you to change in any way, just relax and reflect and then come back and admit the error of your ways. Many Christians will forgive. you. I do not consider myself a Christian ,just someone who can see the wonder and mysteries that seem to completely pass you by ! lol.! You politicize the situation MC in every way equal to those fundamentalist types that you constantly ridicule.

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Someone, I think Meatcleaver, again, said that Scientists welcome investigation into their area of expertise. Some do, many dont. You clearly have never heard Ding Dong Dawkins, the wild Natural Selectioner, in full cry when addressing his critics have you ? If you actually read Dawkins he doesn't have any problem with people questioning his science, he doesn't even have a problem with people questioning his views on religion. He does say confrontation doesn't come naturally to him. I have read his work and if there is an interview on TV I do watch it and I don't see any truth in what you alledge seeks. However, the nonsense that religion purports to be truth does not rely on the integrity of a single man such as Dawkins, the nonsense of religion and a deity, stands by itself for all rational people to see. To believe in a deity is to believe in something for which there is not one shred of objective evidence.

Chaingang -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:28:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave ...just someone who can see the wonder and mysteries that seem to completely pass you by ! lol.! Do you also believe that you are the real Napoleon? For my part, I am glad these little delusions pass me by...

NorthernGent -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:32:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Think about the phrase "Islamo-fascists"... Exactly. To answer NG's suggestion directly, the term Islamo is clearly intended to note Islam and otherness because we are culturally supposed to be Christians, fascist is the usual term of disparagement. In sum, it is a religiously intolerant phrase slanted negatively. ............it passes through everyday speech without notice - but it needs to be noticed and abandoned as a deeply bigoted term. In full agreement, here. Its origins are in a perceived cultural and religious superiority and more importantly it is a phrase intended to reinforce this perception. Surely, a sense of superiority lends weight to any form of domination. This is the danger with religion as it is propping up moral justification for domination in the form of imperialism. Islamo-fascists. Godless commies. They're two peas in a pod really and take away the religious aspect of both phrases and they're rendered impotent. In my opinion, this very fact is a good indicator that the US government believes religion is an effective propadanda tool. To bring it down to the bare bones, what about the phrase "the evil doers". It's like witchhunting in the 16th century - good/evil, god/the devil, christianity/islam. bush and his advisors must believe there is a market for that sort of rhetoric otherwise he would have been advised against it.

seeksfemslave -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:37:10 AM)
I picked up a book critical of the arguments of Natural Selection. It was reviewed by Dawkins who amongst other things said.....this book is crap..... His general demeanor is hostile and abrasive. Mind you of late his nerves seem a little shot, Zensee held me to account when I pointed that fact out earlier. I think he is beginning to realise he has backed himself into a corner and the tide is turning against him. Bit like the multi culturalists in the UK really. Funnily enough I heard/saw him say on a TV programme....we may have to admit the possibilty of purpose in Evolution....I fell off my chair laughing, he should resign his post forthwith. lol

meatcleaver -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:41:24 AM)
Seeks, one man is irrelevent to this argument. It is the nonsense of religion and deity is being questioned. If evolution is a nonsense, it is open to you to prove it a nonsense but you won't prove your belief in a deity by mocking a scientific theory, which after all is a theory waiting to be proved wrong if there is proof.

NorthernGent -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 6:44:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I picked up a book critical of the arguments of Natural Selection. It was reviewed by Dawkins who amongst other things said.....this book is crap..... His general demeanor is hostile and abrasive. Mind you of late his nerves seem a little shot, Zensee held me to account when I pointed that fact out earlier. I think he is beginning to realise he has backed himself into a corner and the tide is turning against him. Bit like the multi culturalists in the UK really. So? If he did say that then surely your efforts would be better served explaining why he is wrong as opposed to spending your time giving us your opinion of his mannerisms.

LadyEllen -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 7:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Think about the phrase "Islamo-fascists"... Exactly. To answer NG's suggestion directly, the term Islamo is clearly intended to note Islam and otherness because we are culturally supposed to be Christians, fascist is the usual term of disparagement. In sum, it is a religiously intolerant phrase slanted negatively. The elephant in the room is the culturally embedded idea of the Christian god, and many here want to act as if it didn't exist and the "extreme views" expressed by some Christians shouldn't be held against them. The problem isn't that there are statues of Odin in the park, but rather that last month it would not have been odd to find a nativity scene in front of city hall. There is a very serious Christian cultural bias in the nations of Europe and the Americas. The fact that such bias is openly tolerated leaves the door wide open for the more extreme Christian viewpoints. As a person well-read in English I can tell you that you can't even understand much of English literature without a strong foundation in biblical ideas. Many things like Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Mallory, etc are only comprehensible through the lens of a Christian worldview. Now whereas this bias doesn't bother me at all in the literature of centuries past it does bother me when used rhetorically to champion certain ideas relevant to current events, as noted by NG. What is so clever about the example is the way it passes through everyday speech without notice - but it needs to be noticed and abandoned as a deeply bigoted term. I look forward to the end of Christianity as the religion of the UK, and all the nonsense bullshit it exerts over the country and its culture. Its OK in itself, but it has absolutely no basis for the way it has spread and is still found today, as a foreign cancer in our society, and the cause of much of society's ills. If people wish to believe in it and go to church, thats fine. But it has no role any longer in government and social structuring, so it needs to be removed. That in no way affects my views on the divine mind you. Though my view on the divine certainly prompts and leads to this conclusion - which is odd, since I'm being told, that only science can lead to this conclusion. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 8:11:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I picked up a book critical of the arguments of Natural Selection. It was reviewed by Dawkins who amongst other things said.....this book is crap..... His general demeanor is hostile and abrasive. Mind you of late his nerves seem a little shot, Zensee held me to account when I pointed that fact out earlier. I think he is beginning to realise he has backed himself into a corner and the tide is turning against him. Bit like the multi culturalists in the UK really. So? If he did say that then surely your efforts would be better served explaining why he is wrong as opposed to spending your time giving us your opinion of his mannerisms. I already have NG, about 100 posts or so on the Darwinian thread. Everybody said I was talking crap. These Enn Essers are a rude lot lol Atheists are a fractious lot too, no feeling for the meaning or emotions behind words either.

Amaros -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 9:20:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Next of course, you will say that my claim is subjective, whilst the scientist can provide replicable evidence by peer review, which makes it objective. What then of the millions worldwide who claim the same findings and experiences as I? Does this not count as replicability and peer review? You will then say, oh but anyone could replicate the science results; but this is hardly the case is it? I dont happen to have trained in the skills required to replicate the science results, so its doubtful I could. And the average scientist has not trained in the spiritual skills required to understand my findings either. So all in all, neither should have the temerity to label the other as stupid, for their specialisation. I dont need to train in geology to understand and accept the findings of that science. No, because of the simple fact of the absence of evidence - science is materialist and based on physical evidence, belief requires no evidence, and that constitutes the difference. That women have no souls and are here only to serve man is a belief promulgated by religion, which at one time was also promulgated by biased scientific viewpoint - evidence has altered the latter view, while no amount of evidence can ever alter the former. Belief doesn't depend on evidence, in fact it's prone to dismiss any contradictory evidence as the work of other malign abstract entities attempting to subvert the truth of the "good" abstract entity. In the end, belief is arbitrary, while science is based on evidence - one can believe in both science and god, one cannot accept arbitrary belief as objective truth without throwing out the scientific method. i.e., there is a line there between belief in an abstract entity, "god", and belief that this entity sets the pattern for all existence, both physical and psychological, which some people claim to "know", evidence or no evidence. It's the difference between Deism and Theism - the former is no particular concern, a harmless eccentricity at worst, perhaps even conveying distinct psychological benefits - and who is to say? The latter by contrast, often is of concern, as it typically translates into political action based on arbitrary and often chauvinistic beliefs, and has historically led to mob violence on a massive scale that is indistinguishable from a violent pathological psychosis.

Rule -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 9:51:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Which would you prefer? A president who weighs evidence and makes decisions based on clear risk / benefit analysis or one who rushes into a stupid, cruel war because god told him to? Anyone who does NOT publicly profess adherence to one particular superstition could not presently become president of the USA. GWB got the big thumbs up from god to invade Iraq - that is pretty scary. He was applauded for revealing that. He should have been escorted from the Whitehouse. lol. So you think that either B or the Pope have one religious bone in them? Because they told you so? You must be a believer. "Read my lips, suckers". Wasn't that what B's father said while he was lying through his teeth? Probably B and the P sodomize each other when they meet in private, but religious they certainly are not. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros True - you also cannot formulate testable hypothesis on phenomona for which there is no evidence of existence There is plenty of evidence of the existence of the Divine and of the gods of classical history and from mythology. The first is not subject to the scientific method as per my definition, but the latter most certainly are subject to the scientific method. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros - the application of the scientific method requires that you proceed as if god doesn't exist, because you cannot control for non-existent phenomona. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros What you do in your private life is your affair, although requiring proof could be interpreted as indicitive of a lack of faith. Why? A good theologician will also question assertions about spiritual phenomena and dogma's and require proof. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros belief requires no evidence If that is true, all believers must be crazy and be put to death as rabid dogs immediately. Fortunately it is not true. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros a belief promulgated by religion, which at one time was also promulgated by biased scientific viewpoint - evidence has altered the latter view, while no amount of evidence can ever alter the former. Belief doesn't depend on evidence, in fact it's prone to dismiss any contradictory evidence as the work of other malign abstract entities attempting to subvert the truth of the "good" abstract entity. Come on! Are you unfamiliar with the theory of evolution? In physics there is E equals mc-square. In the theory of evolution the dogma is: dinosaurs become extinct. If what you say is true, then religions are dinosaurs and will become extinct of their own accord. However, what you say is not true: religions mutate, they have done so for thousands of years, incorporating new knowledge and discarding outdated ideas. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros In the end, belief is arbitrary, No, it is not. It is subjective and that is something else entirely. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros while science is based on evidence LOL. You must excuse me, for I am nearly as cynical as seeks in that respect. Science tries to acertain facts, but scientific beliefs are not based on evidence, but on stupidity. Science is mostly based on what is fashionable at the moment - like "cold fusion" and such nonsense. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros one cannot accept arbitrary belief as objective truth without throwing out the scientific method. Quite. Who does? Ahm, it seems, considering the above as demonstrated, that you espouse a lot of 'arbitrary beliefs'. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros i.e., there is a line there between belief in an abstract entity, "god", and belief that this entity sets the pattern for all existence, both physical and psychological, which some people claim to "know", evidence or no evidence. Indeed, there is such a line. I agree. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros It's the difference between Deism and Theism The latter by contrast, often is of concern, as it typically translates into political action based on arbitrary and often chauvinistic beliefs, and has historically led to mob violence on a massive scale that is indistinguishable from a violent pathological psychosis. You cannot blame that on the Creator. He specifically ordered people: "Do not kill". (It was a stupid directive, as there should be unless-conditions attached to it, so I hereby revoke that directive.)

Amaros -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 10:34:04 AM)
Yes, belief itself is a phenomona for which we have evidence and can form testable hypothesis upon, it's the subject of that belief for which there is seldom any evidence. quote: No, it is not. It is subjective and that is something else entirely. If it doesn't reference empirical, objective reality, it can't be anything else other than arbitrary. Belief in god or the "divine", faith, is arbitrary as it references no empirical objective reality - which has nothing to do with whether such a god or divinity exists or not empirically, nor does it have anything to do with whether it exists for you or not - you say it does, so for you this is true - objectively, it is still arbitrary. That religions are arbitrarily based on arbitrary foundations, however widespread or popular doesn't make them any less arbitrary. quote: LOL. You must excuse me, for I am nearly as cynical as seeks in that respect. Science tries to acertain facts, but scientific beliefs are not based on evidence, but on stupidity. Science is mostly based on what is fashionable at the moment - like "cold fusion" and such nonsense. Belief in science does not require you to believe in cold fusion, you are welcome to examine and confirm or refute the evidence for yourself. This is not arbitrary or discretionary, if you wish to make the claim, you must furnish evidence of it's existence that can be confirmed or refuted.

Amaros -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 10:38:58 AM)
quote: You cannot blame that on the Creator. He specifically ordered people: "Do not kill". (It was a stupid directive, as there should be unless-conditions attached to it, so I hereby revoke that directive.) The directive is arbitrary, since no explanation is furnished other than revelation - your revocation of it more arbitrary still - evolutionary science can explain why the original directive has a sound empirical basis, and is highly utilitarian from an evolutionary standpoint - i.e., the scientific method can reveal the underlying objective truth of the seemingly arbitrary, whereas arbitrary revelation can only pile arbitrariness on top of arbitrariness.

dcnovice -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 11:45:26 AM)
quote: Example it is irrational for Meat and ChainGang to bash religion even though they don't believe in it. Why? because you don't convince people by bashing them. You create hostility and anger. That is all. So in the end their efforts are for division, not unity like professed. That has struck me too. I find it disheartening, cause I'm honestly not sure what I believe and have wondered if I am indeed an atheist. Yet the atheism I've seen on these threads seems downright bleak: combative, dismissive, incapable of seeing shades of gray, more evangelical than my church communities have ever been, obssessed with others' beliefs instead of secure in one's own, unable to leave religion behind and get on with enjoying life. Not an inviting image. quote: I'm still trying to figure out what they are trying to accomplish. It certainly isn't to help the other posters. As everything said was already known to I'd gander everybody already. The point of these repeated threads hasn't been clear to me either. Perhaps the need to proselytize is simply irresistible.

Amaros -> RE: There is No God by Penn Jillette (1/14/2007 11:55:00 AM)
Hence my bringing up the distinction between Deism and Theism - it get's to the heart of what Jillette is trying to say I think - i.e., the difference between belief in a force larger than yourself as an aid to understanding your fellow man or it constituting an obstacle to understanding. Many theists for example are typically militantly anti-secular humanist, whereas many great secular humanists have in fact been deists - Darwin was a deist. i.e., it is not strictly a belief in god that is at issue, but to what extent and degree one is prone to politicize that belief.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02