Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
message 9451:
by
Hazel
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Mar 31, 2013 06:24AM
sorry,I'v been in the bath, and now need to get ready to go to my mams for a family thing for zombie jesus day, or spring equinox, or whatever, its a family thing anyway. I know its more complicated than I said, but its not as complicated as you make out either, however, I don't really have time now to reply properly, I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't ignoring you :)
reply
|
flag
Hazel wrote: "sorry,I'v been in the bath, and now need to get ready to go to my mams for a family thing for zombie jesus day, or spring equinox, or whatever, its a family thing anyway. I know its more complicate..."
I'm not picking at when I say the following ... truly. I point it out because I think it is as complicated, or can be, as I make it out to be.
Somewhat shocked that you'd give tacit approval to Easter.... Life is complicated and there are bad bits all over the place, not just in religious corners.
Now, spending the day with your mom isn't a bad bit. That's awesome. I'm home, alone, and in quarantine with the darned upper respiratory thing that's been going around here. First, I'm tired. Second, I don't want to infect people. That's okay, though. In my family, these holidays are just days. Yes, they have importance, traditions, etc...; however, they are still days on a calendar. We can celebrate the message on our own if we choose and get together to be together on another day. If the weather is nasty or someone is sick, it won't be the end of the world if we cancel on that day; so I'm not moping. ;) I will get my yummy dinner and time with the folks on another day.
I'm not going to wish you a Happy ________, but I do hope you enjoy time with your mom. Consider eating a deviled egg and playing a round of UNO or Trivial Pursuit for me and telling us about it at another time. I could live vicariously. ;)
I'm not picking at when I say the following ... truly. I point it out because I think it is as complicated, or can be, as I make it out to be.
Somewhat shocked that you'd give tacit approval to Easter.... Life is complicated and there are bad bits all over the place, not just in religious corners.
Now, spending the day with your mom isn't a bad bit. That's awesome. I'm home, alone, and in quarantine with the darned upper respiratory thing that's been going around here. First, I'm tired. Second, I don't want to infect people. That's okay, though. In my family, these holidays are just days. Yes, they have importance, traditions, etc...; however, they are still days on a calendar. We can celebrate the message on our own if we choose and get together to be together on another day. If the weather is nasty or someone is sick, it won't be the end of the world if we cancel on that day; so I'm not moping. ;) I will get my yummy dinner and time with the folks on another day.
I'm not going to wish you a Happy ________, but I do hope you enjoy time with your mom. Consider eating a deviled egg and playing a round of UNO or Trivial Pursuit for me and telling us about it at another time. I could live vicariously. ;)
Science. I'd rather have science and no religion. And for those of you who think we can't have morals without religion, please read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Krull, Metalstorm or Battle Beyond the stars. "Ummmm....
I don't think I saw those, though Krull sounds familiar.
For some reason, when I saw Krull, I thought Space Balls. Tha..."
Every time I've watched Spaceballs was hanging out with my friends at like midnight...and it was hilarious.
Not sure if it's as funny in daylight on adequate sleep, but it is Mel Brooks, so it's funnier than 90% of stuff out there.
Gosh, it got quiet here.Must be everyone is full of easter candy and too full and happy to debate.
Travis wrote: "Gosh, it got quiet here.
Must be everyone is full of easter candy and too full and happy to debate."
Define quiet. Or, ... here.
It's wicked, wicked windy in my neck of the woods. I even had a dream about wild dogs growling at my door last night. Think my subconscious turned the sound of the wind into growling dogs!
Must be everyone is full of easter candy and too full and happy to debate."
Define quiet. Or, ... here.
It's wicked, wicked windy in my neck of the woods. I even had a dream about wild dogs growling at my door last night. Think my subconscious turned the sound of the wind into growling dogs!
What do you want to talk about, by the way? Just heard on the news that an airline is charging everyone by the pound now. Everyone. It's not about a seat but about pounds.
Don't gain weight over vacation, folks!
Oh, hey ....
Wonder if women could make a claim for discrimination.
Water weight gain that time of the month...?
Pregnancy...?
Hmmm....
(Wonder how you buy your ticket online?)
Don't gain weight over vacation, folks!
Oh, hey ....
Wonder if women could make a claim for discrimination.
Water weight gain that time of the month...?
Pregnancy...?
Hmmm....
(Wonder how you buy your ticket online?)
Shannon wrote: "What do you want to talk about, by the way? Just heard on the news that an airline is charging everyone by the pound now. Everyone. It's not about a seat but about pounds.Don't gain weight ove..."
No, I'm good. It was just a general observation.
Still have too many jelly beans to get really worked up over anything.
Travis wrote: "Still have too many jelly beans to get really worked up over anything. "
Had Easter dinner and an Easter egg hunt, huh...?
Or, did you get Easter candy on sale at Price Chopper yesterday?
Had Easter dinner and an Easter egg hunt, huh...?
Or, did you get Easter candy on sale at Price Chopper yesterday?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Still have too many jelly beans to get really worked up over anything. "Had Easter dinner and an Easter egg hunt, huh...?
Or, did you get Easter candy on sale at Price Chopper yes..."
Did brunch and then watched cartoons and ate candy with my daughter.
Will be hitting the candy sales as well.
Travis wrote: "cartoons"
Hated cartoons growing up ... would imagine I still do ...
Only liked the Wonder Twins ....
Hated cartoons growing up ... would imagine I still do ...
Only liked the Wonder Twins ....
Don't know why I didn't like cartoons.... Weird, huh. Didn't even like the "funny papers" when I was little. I'm sure it says something about me.
On another note ....
Pumpkin bread or chocolate cake? Feel like baking for work tomorrow and can't decide....
On another note ....
Pumpkin bread or chocolate cake? Feel like baking for work tomorrow and can't decide....
Walmart has 90% off Easter candy this Saturday at my store. HUGE chocolate bunnies for 10 cents!!
religion is needed and as well as science, religion needed because everyone has his/her own way to worshiping or having faith on GOD, but somehow i feel that science doesn't divide people, but religion does. Anyone can guess anybody's religion, caste, creed by knowing his name. I'm against name also. It's awkward but it's a vision that to become one without religion, the one should get rid of his name and surname first. we can use barcode for identification issue.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "sorry,I'v been in the bath, and now need to get ready to go to my mams for a family thing for zombie jesus day, or spring equinox, or whatever, its a family thing anyway. I know its m..."you make an interesting point, and one I will take into consideration for future discussions with people where this may come up. I shall be more specific (and this is one of the main reasons I've not included you as I said earlier), being a member of a religion includes paying your tithe, or putting money into the collection dish, or the alternatives in other religions, and as such, you are giving to the system and financially supporting a institution that does horrific things in the name of religion. By spending time with your family on a weekend that is considered to be religious by some (in different ways by different religions too), but is a time that most people have off work, so is ideal for getting together as a family, and includes the excuse to let the kids have a bit of extra chocolate, and a present or two, isn't tacitly supporting a religion, its directly supporting cadburys :P On the serious side though, yes, you make an interesting point that I will take into account in future, though possibly without the inclusion of the slippery slope fallacy.
I hope you had a good easter, my weekend was exhausting because my daughter was throwing up all night friday night, and then she slept most of saturday, which just had me worried and unable to sleep, as thats really unlike her, and she didn't perk up until about 5pm on sunday, but was still refusing to eat until half way through monday.
I haven’t popped in here for a while, and it looks like nobody else is, either. Here’s a Gedanken Experiment for the sake of conversation:Erwin Schroedinger is famous for his cat in a box, but what about his wife and the closet? Suppose he tells her to get dressed for the Nobel ceremony and she says “I don’t have anything to wear.” Then suppose he were to scientifically measure the contents of her wardrobe and finds that she has thirteen blouses, three pairs of slacks, twelve skirts, fourteen dresses, two elegant ball gowns, twenty-three pairs of shoes, and an assortment of other items all able to be neatly categorized and documented.
Now imagine that Erwin presents the evidence to his wife. She responds with “I couldn’t wear that, it doesn’t fit my hips.” When he presents the next item she replies, “Not white after labor day.” Then “I don’t have shoes for that.” Then “No, that is from last year’s fashion.” And so on until the entire closet is disqualified. If Mr. Schroedinger is going to accept her “interpretation of the evidence” then he is going to agree that she has nothing to wear. But is it Truth?
Now apply the same scenario to other issues being debated. Instead of the defensible hypothesis being “I don’t have a thing to wear,” consider “What happened in Vegas stayed in Vegas,” or maybe, “I can eat three double-cheeseburgers and a large fry for dinner if my soda is diet,” or maybe “Experts recommend everybody double their dose of folic acid and vitamin D—again! (Because we couldn’t have possibly dragged ourselves out of the dark ages with only sunlight to supply our daily vitamin D needs.)” Or how about, “The grand canyon was formed by millions of years of water through hard, dried ground (as opposed to it being formed over a very short time over wet, easily-eroded ground, which is what I observe every winter at my local river).” All of these issues have evidence supporting both sides, but proponents of both sides have legalistically disqualified the evidence they don’t want to see.
Living, thinking beings live in two realities: We co-exist in a common reality that shares itself with everybody, but each of us have our own personal reality as well. The evidence that exists in the common reality that we all share is never perceived within our own, personal realities where it is not welcome. But if Truth only exists in Common Reality, then we’re only deceiving ourselves by ignoring it.
Robert wrote: Living, thinking beings live in two realities: We co-exist in a common reality that shares itself with everybody, but each of us have our own personal reality as well. The evidence that exists in the common reality that we all share is never perceived within our own, personal realities where it is not welcome. But if Truth only exists in Common Reality, then we’re only deceiving ourselves by ignoring it.I agree.
Robert wrote: If Mr. Schroedinger is going to accept her “interpretation of the evidence” then he is going to agree that she has nothing to wear. But is it Truth?
"The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation, every event is a branch point. The cat is both alive and dead—regardless of whether the box is opened—but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe that are equally real but cannot interact with each other.."....so it says in Wiki.
Mr. Schroedinger can accept her “interpretation of the evidence”.
I thought this quote from Robert Ingersoll about the relationship between religion and science rather apropos:“There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: “Let us be friends.” It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: “Let us agree not to step on each other’s feet.”
Ipsith wrote: "There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: “Let us be friends.” It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: “Let us agree not to step on each other’s feet."
I'd ask Mr. Ingersoll a question, if I had the opportunity.
Do you think it best to judge all religions through a Eurocentric lens?
Doesn't seem sporting to me, in this day and age, to always look at things through the Euro-Christian, Euro-Judeo lens.
Ooops .... Euro-Christian.
Did the Jewish people attempt to strangle science in the cradle?
Will have to do some research.
Islam didn't, at least at its founding and for a very long time, attempt to suck the breath out of science. In fact, we can thank many from the Islamic world for many mathematical and scientific advancements. Indeed, it seems to me that many scientific wonderments found breath within the Islamic world.
So, it's back to Euro-Christian.
Rather limiting, in my opinion, Mr. Ingersoll ....
Of course, Mr. Ingersoll was from a different time ... though his father was a preacher and, as many preachers of that time, an abolitionist. Therefore, I'd think he'd be more apt to see the value in the lives and experiences of many ... regardless of color, etc....
I'd ask Mr. Ingersoll a question, if I had the opportunity.
Do you think it best to judge all religions through a Eurocentric lens?
Doesn't seem sporting to me, in this day and age, to always look at things through the Euro-Christian, Euro-Judeo lens.
Ooops .... Euro-Christian.
Did the Jewish people attempt to strangle science in the cradle?
Will have to do some research.
Islam didn't, at least at its founding and for a very long time, attempt to suck the breath out of science. In fact, we can thank many from the Islamic world for many mathematical and scientific advancements. Indeed, it seems to me that many scientific wonderments found breath within the Islamic world.
So, it's back to Euro-Christian.
Rather limiting, in my opinion, Mr. Ingersoll ....
Of course, Mr. Ingersoll was from a different time ... though his father was a preacher and, as many preachers of that time, an abolitionist. Therefore, I'd think he'd be more apt to see the value in the lives and experiences of many ... regardless of color, etc....
Shannon wrote: "Ipsith wrote: "There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is..."No it's not back to Euro-christian.In fact it's not about Christianity at all or any religion for that matter.Throughout the history of any religion there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation and skepticism.
The bigger picture here will imagining a world devoid of
both religion or science.Can any kind of world exist??
Or maybe there is a third dimension to the very fabric of existence.
And i think about it..it's not limiting..sorry...I find it rather limitless.
[edit]
Ipsith wrote: "No it's not back to Euro-christian.In fact it's not about Christianity at all or any religion for that matter."
Ingersoll's quote read that religion attempted to smother science in the cradle. Then, when science lived and grew stronger, wily ole religion, no ... the palsied wreck ... started talking of playing nice.
That was the statement? Yes?
How can one, honestly and seriously, come to the table and talk of other worlds and third dimensions when the original premise is flawed. And, it is flawed. Won't people, some people, have issues seeing past the dishonest branding of all religions as one and as the attempted murderers of science in order to discuss this third dimension? Won't some, yet again, feel alienated?
Ahh.... Don't worry about it, folks. Close your eyes and plug your noses and pretend your religion, like the religion of Christians in Europe in the Middle Ages, etc... attempted to kill science in its infancy. Just go with it. After all, you did have superstitions, even if you didn't attempt to murder babies in their cribs. (I have a vested interest, you see, and sometimes I have a hard time plugging my nose and stopping my fingers from hitting certain keys.)
Further, ...
I don't know about you, but .... Such overgeneralization and oversimplification, as seen in Ingersoll's quote, smacks of the old world to me. Limiting....
But, if you'd like to, instead, talk of third dimensions, I might be game.
Ingersoll's quote read that religion attempted to smother science in the cradle. Then, when science lived and grew stronger, wily ole religion, no ... the palsied wreck ... started talking of playing nice.
That was the statement? Yes?
How can one, honestly and seriously, come to the table and talk of other worlds and third dimensions when the original premise is flawed. And, it is flawed. Won't people, some people, have issues seeing past the dishonest branding of all religions as one and as the attempted murderers of science in order to discuss this third dimension? Won't some, yet again, feel alienated?
Ahh.... Don't worry about it, folks. Close your eyes and plug your noses and pretend your religion, like the religion of Christians in Europe in the Middle Ages, etc... attempted to kill science in its infancy. Just go with it. After all, you did have superstitions, even if you didn't attempt to murder babies in their cribs. (I have a vested interest, you see, and sometimes I have a hard time plugging my nose and stopping my fingers from hitting certain keys.)
Further, ...
I don't know about you, but .... Such overgeneralization and oversimplification, as seen in Ingersoll's quote, smacks of the old world to me. Limiting....
But, if you'd like to, instead, talk of third dimensions, I might be game.
Shannon wrote: "Ipsith wrote: "No it's not back to Euro-christian.In fact it's not about Christianity at all or any religion for that matter."Ingersoll's quote read that religion attempted to smother science in ..."
Faith in the possibilities of continued and rigorous inquiry does not limit access to truth to any channel or scheme of things. It does not first say that truth is universal and then add there is but one road to it.
We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.That's common faith and there is no blood spilled.
.
Forget everything you ordinarily associate with religious study. Strip away all the reverence and the awe and the art and the philosophy of it. Treat the subject coldly. Imagine yourself to be a theologist, but a special kind of theologist, one who studies gods the way an entomologist studies insects. Take as your dataset the entirety of world mythology and treat it as a collection of field observations and statistics pertaining to a hypothetical species: the god. Proceed from there.That's the dimension.. i'm talking about.
I don't argue things being spiritual vs scientific, because I've never met anyone who knows enough about either to be convincing.
so what you talking about??
Ipsith wrote: "Forget everything you ordinarily associate with religious study. Strip away all the reverence and the awe and the art and the philosophy of it. Treat the subject coldly. Imagine yourself to be a theologist, but a special kind of theologist, one who studies gods the way an entomologist studies insects. Take as your dataset the entirety of world mythology and treat it as a collection of field observations and statistics pertaining to a hypothetical species: the god. Proceed from there.That's the dimension.. i'm talking about.
I don't argue things being spiritual vs scientific, because I've never met anyone who knows enough about either to be convincing."
I'm going to assume you've not read any of my posts ... or ... I'm going to assume you're using the "universal you" as many here often do even when addressing someone directly.
Regarding,
"so what you talking about??"
I'm unclear as to what you're asking.
I can say I responded to a quote by Ingersoll that you posted, while saying it was apropos to the relationship between religion and science. I disagree, though that disagreement doesn't stem from a rose-colored glasses approach to religion.
I don't argue things being spiritual vs scientific, because I've never met anyone who knows enough about either to be convincing."
I'm going to assume you've not read any of my posts ... or ... I'm going to assume you're using the "universal you" as many here often do even when addressing someone directly.
Regarding,
"so what you talking about??"
I'm unclear as to what you're asking.
I can say I responded to a quote by Ingersoll that you posted, while saying it was apropos to the relationship between religion and science. I disagree, though that disagreement doesn't stem from a rose-colored glasses approach to religion.
Shannon wrote: "Ipsith wrote: "Forget everything you ordinarily associate with religious study. Strip away all the reverence and the awe and the art and the philosophy of it. Treat the subject coldly. Imagine your..."Yeah..i haven't read any your posts.
I'm reading them now.
"so what you talking about?" was meant to be direct.
Damn...I got riled up.
I disagree on many levels though.
i just..i'm sorry.
Ipsith wrote: "i just..i'm sorry."
Thanks, but there's really no need to be sorry.
We disagree ... at least with regard to Ingersoll ....
I think, though I don't know enough about you and where you're coming from, that the Ingersoll quote doesn't really address what's on your mind and heart. At least, .... My reading of the quote with the proviso that it makes sense when looking at the relationship between religion and science ... doesn't match with what you'd really like to discuss. At least without connecting more dots.
The quote, as it stands ... on its own ... doesn't, in my mind, match.
Let's put Ingersoll aside and put it from your perspective. We could talk about that ....
Thanks, but there's really no need to be sorry.
We disagree ... at least with regard to Ingersoll ....
I think, though I don't know enough about you and where you're coming from, that the Ingersoll quote doesn't really address what's on your mind and heart. At least, .... My reading of the quote with the proviso that it makes sense when looking at the relationship between religion and science ... doesn't match with what you'd really like to discuss. At least without connecting more dots.
The quote, as it stands ... on its own ... doesn't, in my mind, match.
Let's put Ingersoll aside and put it from your perspective. We could talk about that ....
Shannon wrote: "Ipsith wrote: "No it's not back to Euro-christian.In fact it's not about Christianity at all or any religion for that matter."Ingersoll's quote read that religion attempted to smother science in ..."
But, at some point in their history, religion has wailed on science.
Islam was pretty nice to it in the past, but is making up for it now.
Don't see where Islam waiting until science grows up and then killing it means the intent of the quote is gone or disproven.
he may be a bit christ-centric, but most people are when it comes to the religion they are/were a part of.
It may be limiting, or it may be that some religions acted like sportsmen...thinking science was too small, so decided to throw it back, and kill it later.
Travis wrote: "But, at some point in their history, religion has wailed on science.
Islam was pretty nice to it in the past, but is making up for it now.
Don't see where Islam waiting until science grows up and then killing it means the intent of the quote is gone or disproven.
he may be a bit christ-centric, but most people are when it comes to the religion they are/were a part of.
It may be limiting, or it may be that some religions acted like sportsmen...thinking science was too small, so decided to throw it back, and kill it later."
All religions? Really?
All religions, each and every single one, attempted to kill science in its infancy?
Can you point to instances in which American Indian religious traditions attempted to kill science in its infancy? Hmmm...? Did the Druids try to kill science when it was coming into being? The Vikings? Did they also attempt to strangle the baby, known as science, while talking of Thor and Valhalla?
Could you give me some historical references?
Or, are you just talking of Islam?
Regardless, ....
Religion...?
As if all beliefs, faiths and religions can fall under one title and be branded as one .... They can't ... at least when talking about attempting to murder science in its infancy.
But, if you're aware of actual historic facts to disprove me, I'm more than willing to listen.
Islam was pretty nice to it in the past, but is making up for it now.
Don't see where Islam waiting until science grows up and then killing it means the intent of the quote is gone or disproven.
he may be a bit christ-centric, but most people are when it comes to the religion they are/were a part of.
It may be limiting, or it may be that some religions acted like sportsmen...thinking science was too small, so decided to throw it back, and kill it later."
All religions? Really?
All religions, each and every single one, attempted to kill science in its infancy?
Can you point to instances in which American Indian religious traditions attempted to kill science in its infancy? Hmmm...? Did the Druids try to kill science when it was coming into being? The Vikings? Did they also attempt to strangle the baby, known as science, while talking of Thor and Valhalla?
Could you give me some historical references?
Or, are you just talking of Islam?
Regardless, ....
Religion...?
As if all beliefs, faiths and religions can fall under one title and be branded as one .... They can't ... at least when talking about attempting to murder science in its infancy.
But, if you're aware of actual historic facts to disprove me, I'm more than willing to listen.
Hmmm...?
How about the Zoroastrians?
Did they attempt to murder science?
Has anyone done any reading or study regarding them ...?
Overgeneralization is oversimplification and is never the best way to find enlightenment ... unless one learns that lesson after believing in an overgeneralization.
How about the Zoroastrians?
Did they attempt to murder science?
Has anyone done any reading or study regarding them ...?
Overgeneralization is oversimplification and is never the best way to find enlightenment ... unless one learns that lesson after believing in an overgeneralization.
Travis wrote: "most people are when it comes to the religion they are/were a part of"
I'd contend most people are rather egocentric, regardless of whether they are religious or non-believers. Hmmm...? Maybe egocentric isn't the right word.
I think most people have their vision of the way things have been, are, and will continue to be based on their stance, views, beliefs or non-belief. When operating from that stance, people might not see actual reality. They might see an aspect of reality, but they might not see the whole. Further, they might see a skewed version of reality when looking at those who are different and have a different view.
Often either many people are looking through a certain lens and, therefore, it doesn't occur to turn their heads and look from a different perspective ... or ... they feel too much is invested in the lens they bought to focus on other possibilities.
Which, frankly, is likely what Ipsith was trying to get at to begin with.
I'd contend most people are rather egocentric, regardless of whether they are religious or non-believers. Hmmm...? Maybe egocentric isn't the right word.
I think most people have their vision of the way things have been, are, and will continue to be based on their stance, views, beliefs or non-belief. When operating from that stance, people might not see actual reality. They might see an aspect of reality, but they might not see the whole. Further, they might see a skewed version of reality when looking at those who are different and have a different view.
Often either many people are looking through a certain lens and, therefore, it doesn't occur to turn their heads and look from a different perspective ... or ... they feel too much is invested in the lens they bought to focus on other possibilities.
Which, frankly, is likely what Ipsith was trying to get at to begin with.
Shannon, I do believe you are right; that some cultures believe in magical plants which anthropologists have brought back for others to study and found scientific evidence of the plant having healing properties is enough to say that some cultures call science magic.As for Travis's assertion that Muslims are trying to kill science, I don't think that it's they're trying to kill science so much as it's a foul reaction to all things Western, and science is just a small part of it.
I was also educated by Turkish math science teachers in high school; one even taught me about evolution in depth and as more than "just a theory." I joke that if I hadn't discovered archaeology I would have studied botany, and I owe that hobby to him.
Shannon wrote: "On Druids ....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/11...
FYI ..."
I wondered when you'd bring up the Druids.
Couple thoughts, possiblly in random order:
I think the quote is in general tone correct. At what age a religion beats on science, I think that varies, but for most there is a clash at some point.
Except for the Druids. They got strangled by another religion.
If you wish to list every religion and we can go item, by item, feel free, but I think that's needlessly nit-picky, and taking the metaphor a bit too literally.
If the bible can get a pass for being vague and inaccurate, then I'm willing to let slide the occasional metaphor on the other side.
for heather's idea that Islam is really against all things western and science just got caught in the crossfire, I don't see that as a defense.
It's especially sad, since they used to have such a rich history concerning science.
Travis wrote: "I think the quote is in general tone correct. At what age a religion beats on science, I think that varies, but for most there is a clash at some point.
Except for the Druids. They got strangled by another religion.
If you wish to list every religion and we can go item, by item, feel free, but I think that's needlessly nit-picky, and taking the metaphor a bit too literally.
"
Ah.... It's a metaphor now, is it? I thought it was true.
Well, given that it's now a metaphor, you don't have to provide evidence.
A good thing ....
Tell me ....
Why do some non-believers believe so many things without proof? In fact, why do some non-believers believe so many things that are actually proven inaccurate?
Religion causes all wars....
The Romans wrote everything down.... (Notice no one tackled or answered that ... in any way ... Go, Boudicca.)
Religion, all religion, attempted to kill science in its infancy. (Including American Indian beliefs, Zoroastrians, Vikings, Druids ... they're all close enough to the Christian religion and did the same things, oops, they didn't ... but ... if we say it over and over people might believe us.)
So, ...
Non-believers ....
I'm curious.
This thread is about questions.
Believers have been questioned regarding their beliefs.
Okay.
Let's go.
Why do non-believers believe such things, argue till blue in the face often times even when given evidence to suggest otherwise, and support untruths?
I find myself to be curious.
In addition, your answers may or may not help you understand why others would dare to believe ....
Dare to believe something that ... can't be proven but, unlike the above, hasn't been disproven.
Happy Monday Morning! By the way, ...
Except for the Druids. They got strangled by another religion.
If you wish to list every religion and we can go item, by item, feel free, but I think that's needlessly nit-picky, and taking the metaphor a bit too literally.
"
Ah.... It's a metaphor now, is it? I thought it was true.
Well, given that it's now a metaphor, you don't have to provide evidence.
A good thing ....
Tell me ....
Why do some non-believers believe so many things without proof? In fact, why do some non-believers believe so many things that are actually proven inaccurate?
Religion causes all wars....
The Romans wrote everything down.... (Notice no one tackled or answered that ... in any way ... Go, Boudicca.)
Religion, all religion, attempted to kill science in its infancy. (Including American Indian beliefs, Zoroastrians, Vikings, Druids ... they're all close enough to the Christian religion and did the same things, oops, they didn't ... but ... if we say it over and over people might believe us.)
So, ...
Non-believers ....
I'm curious.
This thread is about questions.
Believers have been questioned regarding their beliefs.
Okay.
Let's go.
Why do non-believers believe such things, argue till blue in the face often times even when given evidence to suggest otherwise, and support untruths?
I find myself to be curious.
In addition, your answers may or may not help you understand why others would dare to believe ....
Dare to believe something that ... can't be proven but, unlike the above, hasn't been disproven.
Happy Monday Morning! By the way, ...
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I think the quote is in general tone correct. At what age a religion beats on science, I think that varies, but for most there is a clash at some point.Except for the Druids. They g..."
The quote is as meant to be taken as literally as you would the bible.
What untruths are people still arguing with you about until they are blue in the face?
The war thing has been pretty well settled, I thought.
We get the occasional new person that brings it up, but otherwise people have agreed to take it on a war by war basis and avoid the umbrella statement.
Can't help you about the Roman thing, as I don't recall coming in on either side of that one.
and I've already brought up the 'strangling science' quote.
any left that we can deal with?
Travis wrote: "If you wish to list every religion and we can go item, by item, feel free, but I think that's needlessly nit-picky, and taking the metaphor a bit too literally.
and ...
The quote is as meant to be taken as literally as you would the bible."
First, I appreciate your willingness to tackle the questions. You're the only one to do so. Either all the non-believers who frequent this thread are busy, which could be, or they have no intention of answering, which also could be. If the former, I totally understand. If the latter, I find it somewhat interesting; perhaps it's easier to ask than answer. I don't know.
Now, regarding the above ....
If that's true, why did you make the following statement yesterday?
"But, at some point in their history, religion has wailed on science."
When you joined the conversation, you didn't say, "Whoa, Shannon. It's just a metaphor."
You said "religion" has wailed on science.
Therefore, I'm confused by your current argument. Metaphor? Did you change your mind between yesterday and today? Did you decide it was just a metaphor? If so, do you no longer contend that "religion" has wailed on science? I mean, if that's what happened, that's cool.
However, if you still truly believe "religion" has wailed on science, I'd ask for evidence. All religions? Tell me about it, with specifics. Actually, I don't think that's nitpicking. If the contention is that religion, all religions, have literally attempted to kill science, I'd like the person or persons arguing that point to pony up.
If we're talking about reality and what really happened throughout time, I'd appreciate it if people would refrain from lumping all religions into one and saying religion attempted to kill science.
Further, why wouldn't I (...or anyone) think the quote is meant literally. After all, the Christian church in Europe did try to kill science in its infancy. Scientists were persecuted. Scientists had to practice in secret and silence else face imprisonment and death. Come on.... We, all of us, are aware of that. Painfully aware.
Those atrocities weren't perpetrated by all religions. Similar acts weren't perpetrated by all religions. So, no, I don't agree that all religions have wailed on science. I know that not to be true. It's an untruth. Further, given that, I'm not even sure it works as an appropriate metaphor.
I could ask.... What's the deal? Why argue this point? It seems pretty obvious to me that it was the Christians who tried to kill science in the crib, literally. I'd say my request, not to overgeneralize, is reasonable.
So, what gives? Do atheist organizations and leaders within the atheist community contend that religion, as in all, have attempted to kill science? Is that a rallying cry of some sort? Part of the playbook? If you like medicine and the Internet and other forms of technology, you need to leave your religion; religion tries to put science down every minute of every day. Really? All religions?
Speaking of what's behind what is said ....
"What untruths are people still arguing with you about until they are blue in the face?
Interesting way to phrase the question. Still? None, but that doesn't come close to revealing the truth of the situation.
If we look back at the history of the thread and were honest, we'd have to admit there was PLENTY of arguing until blue in the face when I first started broaching, for example, the fact that religion hasn't caused all or even most wars.
In fact, when I made a statement about everyone knowing that to be true and that I could list a bunch of wars that weren't faith based, you, Travis, made a comment along the lines of ... religious people make comments about what they can prove, but they don't ... therefore, they're full of it. So, I made my list .... Someday, as I've said, you'll understand that I don't pull things out of my arse.
At that point, I'd say around four non-believers argued with me and argued with me and argued with me about that point and my list. You know what? That's cool. It was educational. But, then ... when I very clearly made the point ....
No one said, "Holy crap! I didn't realize!"
This is what happened .... Someone, maybe Hazel, said something like, ... let's contend all wars weren't caused by religion and leave it at that.
Oh....
Really....
As an aside, I wonder how many people turned from their faith based on that false argument ... that religion has caused all wars?
Then, for months after that, when new people would make that statement and I countered, you and, perhaps, Gary, though mostly you, would accuse me of entering a childish contest regarding which side was worse. Unclear on Gary.... He might have made that argument about something else.
After going at Cerebus for sharing what he learned and making it clear that you didn't want me to bring up the truth when people post that religion causes all wars, I even settled upon the ... fine, I'll say, "Please refer to Post 8725" so as not to offend sensibilities.
Right...? Blue....
No, you weren't part of the Roman thing. That happened recently with another poster. It has been brought up in the past, though. In fact, when it came up over a year ago, it shook my faith a bit.
Yup. You see, it was used in a back and forth with me. I was asked about my views on Jesus, if I recall correctly. Different non-believers started questioning me and made some judgments. Jesus wasn't really a good person. Fig tree. The woman and scraps comment. Jesus made people bow to him before he healed them. (Untrue, at least in total, and something that was argued until blue ... which reminds me ... didn't you just make me take out my Bible the other day ... you might not have been blue, but ...)
Finally, the kicker was, "You know, the Romans wrote everything down. Don't you think they'd write about Jesus? If he was so important and running round healing people and crucified for going up against the system, don't you think it would be in the record?"
Ohhhh....
Shook me, that did.
Wonder if that was the point.
I also think it was used on someone else a bit later, at least once.
At any rate, after that, I started doing a bunch of research. Hours worth. Days. Yeah, guess what? The Romans didn't write down everything. They even left out some really big and important things ... things that we know happened.
Do you have any idea how totally and completely blanked-off I'd be if I left my faith over that? I mean, hey, it made sense. Romans did keep a lot of documentation. It was logical. It was presented by people who talked of logic and evidence and only reporting accurate and defensible information. The capstone of atheism if there is a capstone, and all that.
What if I were a different person? Instead of researching it myself, what if I walked away from my faith based on a lie?
What kind of betrayal is that, by the way? I can hear it now. Someone is going to say ... we don't even know one another, so it can't be a betrayal. Well, guess what? It would be a betrayal of the truth. It would be dishonorable. That's at worst. At best, it would be people believing the lies of others while claiming they don't believe, and promoting those lies as facts, unknowingly. That would be at best.
I honestly don't know what to make of it. Either people don't have a grasp of history, as I've mentioned before. Or, people have no qualms in using pulp fiction tactics in order to turn believers from their faith. And, sorry, if those tactics are being used, knowingly, that's exactly what people are trying to do. But, again, I don't know what the truth is regarding this.
Anything left to deal with? You tell me. And, it will be interesting to see if non-believers speak up and share ... or not.
and ...
The quote is as meant to be taken as literally as you would the bible."
First, I appreciate your willingness to tackle the questions. You're the only one to do so. Either all the non-believers who frequent this thread are busy, which could be, or they have no intention of answering, which also could be. If the former, I totally understand. If the latter, I find it somewhat interesting; perhaps it's easier to ask than answer. I don't know.
Now, regarding the above ....
If that's true, why did you make the following statement yesterday?
"But, at some point in their history, religion has wailed on science."
When you joined the conversation, you didn't say, "Whoa, Shannon. It's just a metaphor."
You said "religion" has wailed on science.
Therefore, I'm confused by your current argument. Metaphor? Did you change your mind between yesterday and today? Did you decide it was just a metaphor? If so, do you no longer contend that "religion" has wailed on science? I mean, if that's what happened, that's cool.
However, if you still truly believe "religion" has wailed on science, I'd ask for evidence. All religions? Tell me about it, with specifics. Actually, I don't think that's nitpicking. If the contention is that religion, all religions, have literally attempted to kill science, I'd like the person or persons arguing that point to pony up.
If we're talking about reality and what really happened throughout time, I'd appreciate it if people would refrain from lumping all religions into one and saying religion attempted to kill science.
Further, why wouldn't I (...or anyone) think the quote is meant literally. After all, the Christian church in Europe did try to kill science in its infancy. Scientists were persecuted. Scientists had to practice in secret and silence else face imprisonment and death. Come on.... We, all of us, are aware of that. Painfully aware.
Those atrocities weren't perpetrated by all religions. Similar acts weren't perpetrated by all religions. So, no, I don't agree that all religions have wailed on science. I know that not to be true. It's an untruth. Further, given that, I'm not even sure it works as an appropriate metaphor.
I could ask.... What's the deal? Why argue this point? It seems pretty obvious to me that it was the Christians who tried to kill science in the crib, literally. I'd say my request, not to overgeneralize, is reasonable.
So, what gives? Do atheist organizations and leaders within the atheist community contend that religion, as in all, have attempted to kill science? Is that a rallying cry of some sort? Part of the playbook? If you like medicine and the Internet and other forms of technology, you need to leave your religion; religion tries to put science down every minute of every day. Really? All religions?
Speaking of what's behind what is said ....
"What untruths are people still arguing with you about until they are blue in the face?
Interesting way to phrase the question. Still? None, but that doesn't come close to revealing the truth of the situation.
If we look back at the history of the thread and were honest, we'd have to admit there was PLENTY of arguing until blue in the face when I first started broaching, for example, the fact that religion hasn't caused all or even most wars.
In fact, when I made a statement about everyone knowing that to be true and that I could list a bunch of wars that weren't faith based, you, Travis, made a comment along the lines of ... religious people make comments about what they can prove, but they don't ... therefore, they're full of it. So, I made my list .... Someday, as I've said, you'll understand that I don't pull things out of my arse.
At that point, I'd say around four non-believers argued with me and argued with me and argued with me about that point and my list. You know what? That's cool. It was educational. But, then ... when I very clearly made the point ....
No one said, "Holy crap! I didn't realize!"
This is what happened .... Someone, maybe Hazel, said something like, ... let's contend all wars weren't caused by religion and leave it at that.
Oh....
Really....
As an aside, I wonder how many people turned from their faith based on that false argument ... that religion has caused all wars?
Then, for months after that, when new people would make that statement and I countered, you and, perhaps, Gary, though mostly you, would accuse me of entering a childish contest regarding which side was worse. Unclear on Gary.... He might have made that argument about something else.
After going at Cerebus for sharing what he learned and making it clear that you didn't want me to bring up the truth when people post that religion causes all wars, I even settled upon the ... fine, I'll say, "Please refer to Post 8725" so as not to offend sensibilities.
Right...? Blue....
No, you weren't part of the Roman thing. That happened recently with another poster. It has been brought up in the past, though. In fact, when it came up over a year ago, it shook my faith a bit.
Yup. You see, it was used in a back and forth with me. I was asked about my views on Jesus, if I recall correctly. Different non-believers started questioning me and made some judgments. Jesus wasn't really a good person. Fig tree. The woman and scraps comment. Jesus made people bow to him before he healed them. (Untrue, at least in total, and something that was argued until blue ... which reminds me ... didn't you just make me take out my Bible the other day ... you might not have been blue, but ...)
Finally, the kicker was, "You know, the Romans wrote everything down. Don't you think they'd write about Jesus? If he was so important and running round healing people and crucified for going up against the system, don't you think it would be in the record?"
Ohhhh....
Shook me, that did.
Wonder if that was the point.
I also think it was used on someone else a bit later, at least once.
At any rate, after that, I started doing a bunch of research. Hours worth. Days. Yeah, guess what? The Romans didn't write down everything. They even left out some really big and important things ... things that we know happened.
Do you have any idea how totally and completely blanked-off I'd be if I left my faith over that? I mean, hey, it made sense. Romans did keep a lot of documentation. It was logical. It was presented by people who talked of logic and evidence and only reporting accurate and defensible information. The capstone of atheism if there is a capstone, and all that.
What if I were a different person? Instead of researching it myself, what if I walked away from my faith based on a lie?
What kind of betrayal is that, by the way? I can hear it now. Someone is going to say ... we don't even know one another, so it can't be a betrayal. Well, guess what? It would be a betrayal of the truth. It would be dishonorable. That's at worst. At best, it would be people believing the lies of others while claiming they don't believe, and promoting those lies as facts, unknowingly. That would be at best.
I honestly don't know what to make of it. Either people don't have a grasp of history, as I've mentioned before. Or, people have no qualms in using pulp fiction tactics in order to turn believers from their faith. And, sorry, if those tactics are being used, knowingly, that's exactly what people are trying to do. But, again, I don't know what the truth is regarding this.
Anything left to deal with? You tell me. And, it will be interesting to see if non-believers speak up and share ... or not.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "If you wish to list every religion and we can go item, by item, feel free, but I think that's needlessly nit-picky, and taking the metaphor a bit too literally.and ...
The quote i..."
Lot's to cover, I'll apologize in advance for rambling:
I think the quote is a metaphor ( mostly due to the infancy/ dotage part, as I don't know if those are accurate descriptions on where we are in the scale of history) while I also think religion has wailed science.
It's happened in the past and it's happening now.
I don't think the quote is a literal thing, but it has a crumb of truth in it.
If you feel a religion is being slighted by the umbrella term, I did offer a religion by religion list idea, as I know you are protective of the Druids and don't want to see them lumped in with those trouble making religions.
Not sure how many responses you will get as the gay marriage debate seems to have chased away a few, but if you go into a debate expected an announcement of acceptance on each point, then I'd pack a lunch.
It's nice when it happens, but don't expect it all the time.
Sometimes someone will say something, sometimes people will wander off and sometimes you get quiet acceptance.
Unless you are keeping score, I'd say ( from some personal experience) be glad people are no longer yelling at you and wait and see where the conversation goes.
My thoughts on the Roman thing: I can understand they might not be the most meticulous record keepers, what with the fire and the barbarians, but a known rabble rouser is executed and then comes back from the dead and nobody thought that was worth jotting down...?
It's amazing how much of the bible occurred and nobody , outside the guys that wrote the bible, had a pencil on them at the time.
Isn't that just the way, you can never find one when you need one.
So, even if the romans missed some stuff, to then assume, 'Well, I guess they missed, just about everything that happened in the bible!' is a bit too coincidental and a really weak defense.
Now, going on about non-believers turning good believers from their faith with a lie might work if you think all the many reasons people have for leaving a faith are part of the vast atheist conspiracy.
At least on this board, I think the worst anybody can be accused of is being misinformed and overly emotional in presenting their side.
I think you are ascribing malice, where there is none.
If this hypothetical person lost their faith over something dubious said on an internet message board than maybe that believer was considering living the faith already, or maybe it was a crap religion if that's all it took to turn that person away.
Do you really want someone too naive/lazy / knucklehead that they are immediately swayed by the internet as part of your religion?
Okay, scientology might...
Personally, I think, judging by the amount of argument I've gotten from believers on this thread, I think you are doing them a disservice thinking we are going to drive them away from their faith.
and speaking of no grasp of history, fact and truth...well, those really are the perfect qualities to have in your followers if you are running a religion.
Let's face it, if people paid attention to those three things the Vatican would have gone out of business years ago.
I admit, non-believers may have done our share of ignoring those three, but we are still in our infancy compared to religion.
Travis wrote: "If you feel a religion is being slighted by the umbrella term, I did offer a religion by religion list idea, as I know you are protective of the Druids and don't want to see them lumped in with those trouble making religions."
Mmmm....
So, since I gave a list before you asked for one, I'm not sure whether or not you're playing. I mean, for some reason, you seem to be focused on Druids.
Native American religious beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Druids, Vikings ... I contend they did not wail on science. In fact, I'm not the only one who would make that contention. History proves it out.
If you'd like to continue to have it both ways and say it's a metaphor, but, really, religion has wailed on science, pony up. Please cite the examples of the above religious groups wailing on science.
Or, perhaps, you'd like to back off the overgeneralization. After all, you usually argue against overgeneralization. Makes it rather interesting that you'd be so wedded to this one.
Mmmm....
So, since I gave a list before you asked for one, I'm not sure whether or not you're playing. I mean, for some reason, you seem to be focused on Druids.
Native American religious beliefs, Zoroastrianism, Druids, Vikings ... I contend they did not wail on science. In fact, I'm not the only one who would make that contention. History proves it out.
If you'd like to continue to have it both ways and say it's a metaphor, but, really, religion has wailed on science, pony up. Please cite the examples of the above religious groups wailing on science.
Or, perhaps, you'd like to back off the overgeneralization. After all, you usually argue against overgeneralization. Makes it rather interesting that you'd be so wedded to this one.
Travis wrote: "Unless you are keeping score, I'd say ( from some personal experience) be glad people are no longer yelling at you and wait and see where the conversation goes."
Okay. Note to self. Don't expect honesty but be thankful people are no longer yelling at me. Check.
Okay. Note to self. Don't expect honesty but be thankful people are no longer yelling at me. Check.
Travis wrote: "a known rabble rouser is executed and then comes back from the dead and nobody thought that was worth jotting down...?
It's amazing how much of the bible occurred and nobody , outside the guys that wrote the bible, had a pencil on them at the time.
Isn't that just the way, you can never find one when you need one."
Yeah, funny. Sort of like when a woman kicked the a** of the Roman army in the UK and burned two cities, one so hot archaeologists found it turned the remains of buildings, etc... to "glass" ... and all the able bodied men ran, like cowards, from London, leaving the elderly and women behind .... Funny no one wrote that down. Or, ... funny no one wrote that down at the time but waited 50 years or so. I mean, hey, something like that .... A woman, doing all that ... then ...! Must be it didn't happen, else they would have written it down.
Sort of like Hannibal, yeah? All those elephants going over all of those mountains ... Hannibal going into Italy itself. Dang, man. Shoot. Must be that didn't happen either.
I mean, ....
The Romans, being the men and women of character and courage that they were ... shoot ... surely they would keep diligent records regarding the men and women who stood against them.
Right?
It makes sense that they'd want everyone on the planet to know they were weak little whelps who got their butts handed to them.
Right?
It's amazing how much of the bible occurred and nobody , outside the guys that wrote the bible, had a pencil on them at the time.
Isn't that just the way, you can never find one when you need one."
Yeah, funny. Sort of like when a woman kicked the a** of the Roman army in the UK and burned two cities, one so hot archaeologists found it turned the remains of buildings, etc... to "glass" ... and all the able bodied men ran, like cowards, from London, leaving the elderly and women behind .... Funny no one wrote that down. Or, ... funny no one wrote that down at the time but waited 50 years or so. I mean, hey, something like that .... A woman, doing all that ... then ...! Must be it didn't happen, else they would have written it down.
Sort of like Hannibal, yeah? All those elephants going over all of those mountains ... Hannibal going into Italy itself. Dang, man. Shoot. Must be that didn't happen either.
I mean, ....
The Romans, being the men and women of character and courage that they were ... shoot ... surely they would keep diligent records regarding the men and women who stood against them.
Right?
It makes sense that they'd want everyone on the planet to know they were weak little whelps who got their butts handed to them.
Right?
Travis wrote: "Now, going on about non-believers turning good believers from their faith with a lie might work if you think all the many reasons people have for leaving a faith are part of the vast atheist conspiracy.
At least on this board, I think the worst anybody can be accused of is being misinformed and overly emotional in presenting their side.
I think you are ascribing malice, where there is none."
Might want to take note of a few things ....
First, I didn't ascribe malice. I left an opening for being misinformed and promoting the lies of others.
Second, I don't know that it would have to be true only if it was a conspiracy. After all, I remember at least one non-believer here arguing that using certain tactics to make someone question the truth of their beliefs could be excusable if it helped them. All those people of faith living tortured lives due to being made to feel guilty for everything. Maybe someone would want to save them from all of those horrors.
Third, I read the American Atheist page, at length. I also read one of the atheist threads here, before they went to 18 and over and only share with members. Funny thing, that. You know. The one that had the thread on how many religious folk they converted, ... including, especially, which religion, age, level of intellect, means used.
Not in the mood to play....
Regarding the motives of the people here, ...
There are possible options ... but ... unless and until they honestly answer the questions, both of us would have to make some assumption, yeah?
I'd rather list the possibilities and ask. Either I'll get answers or I'll listen to the sound of crickets.
At least on this board, I think the worst anybody can be accused of is being misinformed and overly emotional in presenting their side.
I think you are ascribing malice, where there is none."
Might want to take note of a few things ....
First, I didn't ascribe malice. I left an opening for being misinformed and promoting the lies of others.
Second, I don't know that it would have to be true only if it was a conspiracy. After all, I remember at least one non-believer here arguing that using certain tactics to make someone question the truth of their beliefs could be excusable if it helped them. All those people of faith living tortured lives due to being made to feel guilty for everything. Maybe someone would want to save them from all of those horrors.
Third, I read the American Atheist page, at length. I also read one of the atheist threads here, before they went to 18 and over and only share with members. Funny thing, that. You know. The one that had the thread on how many religious folk they converted, ... including, especially, which religion, age, level of intellect, means used.
Not in the mood to play....
Regarding the motives of the people here, ...
There are possible options ... but ... unless and until they honestly answer the questions, both of us would have to make some assumption, yeah?
I'd rather list the possibilities and ask. Either I'll get answers or I'll listen to the sound of crickets.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "If this hypothetical person lost their faith over something dubious said on an internet message board than maybe that believer was considering living the faith already, or maybe it was a crap religion if that's all it took to turn that person away."
Knew that would be the response ....
I shared the truth of my experience; it shook my faith a bit. I'd guess it could likely shake others, maybe to the point of leaving their beliefs. After all, with that "fact" and the "fact" that religion caused all wars .... Oh, my! No written record of Jesus despite the Romans writing down everything and religion causing all wars and the "fact" that one can get nothing from religion they can't get elsewhere .... Dang! I'm guessing that might make people think twice.
If not, why do non-believers devote so much time to making those same arguments ... over and over again?
Hmmm...?
Also ....
Regarding all your experience with the believers here ... me doing them a disservice ....
Who are you talking about, exactly?
Don't most of the believers here leave .... PDQ. Pretty damned quick. Are you talking about your experience with me and with cHriS?
What about the times people have said, "Gee, guys! You're the reason I'm now an atheist. I wasn't sure about my religion, listened to the points you made and, wow, I need to thank you" ... right?
That's happened twice, in my memory here.
Sort of makes me sick to my stomach ... but, then ... I'm not trying to convert people and don't belong to a thread that lists the people I've converted ... with ages, levels of intellect, etc....
Oh, oops.... I forgot. Gary doesn't like it when I mention that.
Knew that would be the response ....
I shared the truth of my experience; it shook my faith a bit. I'd guess it could likely shake others, maybe to the point of leaving their beliefs. After all, with that "fact" and the "fact" that religion caused all wars .... Oh, my! No written record of Jesus despite the Romans writing down everything and religion causing all wars and the "fact" that one can get nothing from religion they can't get elsewhere .... Dang! I'm guessing that might make people think twice.
If not, why do non-believers devote so much time to making those same arguments ... over and over again?
Hmmm...?
Also ....
Regarding all your experience with the believers here ... me doing them a disservice ....
Who are you talking about, exactly?
Don't most of the believers here leave .... PDQ. Pretty damned quick. Are you talking about your experience with me and with cHriS?
What about the times people have said, "Gee, guys! You're the reason I'm now an atheist. I wasn't sure about my religion, listened to the points you made and, wow, I need to thank you" ... right?
That's happened twice, in my memory here.
Sort of makes me sick to my stomach ... but, then ... I'm not trying to convert people and don't belong to a thread that lists the people I've converted ... with ages, levels of intellect, etc....
Oh, oops.... I forgot. Gary doesn't like it when I mention that.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "If you feel a religion is being slighted by the umbrella term, I did offer a religion by religion list idea, as I know you are protective of the Druids and don't want to see them lum..."It can be both a metaphor and have an element of truth to it.
Words can multitask.
Think of all the allegories in the bible.
It's really not the 'Ah-hah! Gotcha!' moment you seem to think it is.
I just mention the Druids, because they are one of your go to groups in this kind of chats.
Whenever the talk turns to any kind of listing of religions, I know you will bring up the Druids.
Makes me chuckle.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Unless you are keeping score, I'd say ( from some personal experience) be glad people are no longer yelling at you and wait and see where the conversation goes."Okay. Note to self..."
Note to self: don't make statements that start with 'note to self', as it makes you sound like a sulky 15 year old.
and I live with one, so I know whereof what I speak.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "a known rabble rouser is executed and then comes back from the dead and nobody thought that was worth jotting down...?It's amazing how much of the bible occurred and nobody , outsid..."
Yes, but the tendency of people to then make the leap that 'So, that means the bible must be true, because the romans didn't write about it either...!' is a questionable argument.
That's the bit I have trouble with.
religion's constant defense is the claim that non-believers need to disprove a negative, when religion refuses to prove the thing they claim must have happened.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Now, going on about non-believers turning good believers from their faith with a lie might work if you think all the many reasons people have for leaving a faith are part of the vast..."atheists have a website...?
I didn't know we were that organized.
personally, I don't want to play either, so how about we stick to what's happened on this thread, as I'm sure I can find some hateful religious websites too, but that game is never any fun and almost never leads to any interesting discussion.
If a poster has made the claims you say, go after them.
I'm only the spokesman for me and my motive and methods are pretty straightforward.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "If this hypothetical person lost their faith over something dubious said on an internet message board than maybe that believer was considering living the faith alread..."We'll again, I don't keep count of the converts, but the fact that some people may have rethought their belief system and moved on from it does happen, and it's not all evil atheists.
the fact that you are acting like the only things that make people change are the war and romans arguments or that are we all evil liars putting a metal whammy on poor innocent believers sort of makes me sick as well.
You make it sound like believers are unthinking , easily swayed sheep and atheists are some kind of mix of the X-men and the conspiracy that faked the moon landing.
I'm sorry if you had a bad experience like that, but to then lump us all together and act like all we atheists do is repeat war and romans over and over for 190 pages when there have been a multitude of arguments against religion is wrong and petty and the same kind of factually wrong generalization you are accusing us all of.
Seeing as religion is out there in the real world and has a stranglehold on a huge chunk of the planet, while the atheists get to hang out on the internet, those poor believers that did't come back might have decided to just go where no one would call them on the 'facts' or their complete lack of facts they put out.
maybe one of those good christian websites where they promote shooting abortion providers.
maybe those converts that we atheists have wracked up started thinking for themselves and decided the world is enough it was time for god to go hang out with all the other imaginary friends you are supposed to grow up and move on from.
Easily in a world without religion. Science actually exists.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
