Last words of eminent athesits

The reason why i sked Japed to produce evidence of his beliefs is that he claimed to have aquired data over the years, through his five senses (which I can relate to and understand), that had brought him to the conclusion that there was something supernatural about existence. I wanted to know what that was. You can't possibly think this is wrong of me to do.

I have still not written that everyone practicing religion is crazy. I can't see it anywhere in my posts. What I have written, on the other hand, is this: Religion promoted belief without proof. Religion promotes belief without question. That does not mean that every religious person is of that direct aproach. Many are, though, and that is a serious problem. I happen to believe that even fundamentalist suicide bombers question wether their deed is justified or not. But they are always reminded by the very structure of their belief-system, over and over again, that this is Gods will and it cannot be questioned.

(Paranthesis here. Explanation as to why you cannot question God:
If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, then who are you to question Gods will? If God created everything, omnipotent/omniscient or not, then who are you to question Gods will? God created you. God knows you better than yourself. You cannot question God.)

Why did I write that one does not question sacred scriptures? Because, in the end, one doesn't. They are interpreted, they are analyzed... but never changed. They remain the same, free for anyone to use literally or not. They are static theories on reality in a dynamic universe. Scientific theories are not. They are changed when proven wrong. But how can one prove a religious text wrong? One cannot. SO, in the end, one does not question it.

 

You overlooked a couple:

• I'm a person on the Internet. I'm prepared to listen. I'm also prepared to spout.

• I suggest that an enlightened or indifferent person would also choose not to question his reality or beliefs.

A friend of mine has decided that the best way to conduct a religious discussion is for both parties to accept that the other party is not going to change his point of view and I subscribe to this view. I think it is a good, respectful policy to follow. I haven't participated in this discussion with the hopes of having my belief system changed or to mock other people for theirs. Some points of view have struck me as interesting and I would like to attempt to understand how people arrived at them.

 

These people of blind, unquestioning faith that have been described here are the types who have either misinterpreted scripture to suit their own heretical purposes (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church) or the types who are naive enough to be duped by the likes of Jim Jones or, more subtly, the 'Health and Wealth' preachers of today. Naturally, I do not appreciate being lumped in with ignorant heretics. As I said, I have applied due logic to my belief system. As to the evidence I have found, I do not have the time to share my life story just now, and based on the prevailing tone of this thread I am not convinced that sharing personal details of my life would be in any way rewarding. I might just as well put on my Seattle Seahawks jersey and go hang out on Bourbon Street.

 

Einstein was wrong with that, you know.

It's more of a question of people who are prone to blindly believe choosing to go believe in a religion.

Which brings up, care to repeat you views on evolution and abiogenesis?

Quoted again.

In contrast, "your" faith on God is based on modified Jewish religion (which is modified Sumerian/Mesopotamian mythology), written not by the claimed "messiah", but the poor minded disciples and arranged by Roman Imperial clergy.

If Abramaic religions pointed to a "real god", it's much more possible for it being Yhwh or Allah then your "Lord".

I find your lack of knowledge on rational inquiry and basic logic disturbing.

Of course, unless said "enlightened" person does not know basic philosophical skills. Then you couldn't really define this person to be "enlightened", eh?

 

I'll admit my first quoted point was over the top, but I stand by my second one. "Enlightened" people apparently have no need for self-reflection?

TDC, you only prove my point by quoting perhaps my only mishap in a long post and ignoring the rest. Showing me that nobody is ready to listen and only looking for flaws. I think I shall go back to what I should have been doing and avoiding this thread.

 

A religious text is a source of data, the same way a scientific publication is. Christ did not modify Judaism, he fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant and the messianic prophesies of the Old Testament. As to your last statement, I'm not real sure what you're getting at.

 

How has this gone on this long with merely trite repetitions to perpetuate it?

 

Okay, okay, okay. I'm wrong, that's fine.

Having studied comparative religion for many years I've concluded that they all contain truth, and problems only arise with their exclusive claims to truth.

That's what shits me most about Dawkins, too: Yeah, he's right, but he's as arrogant and evangelical about it as any other fanatic.

Can't we just agree that nobody knows and we're all free to believe whatever?

PS - Except Scientology. Now, THAT's a crock of shit.

 

No we cannot, because people in certain camps have a whole lot more riding on being right than the other camps.

I'll admit the following: I don't understand how you concluded from my statement that I lack an understanding of logic.
And request the obvious: Would you please explain how you came to make this mental leap?
This is one example of how to address a misunderstanding and improve clarity. An alternative would be to surrender to the anonymous stranger's statement and let it disturb or otherwise damage one's fragile psyche.

I believe an enlightened person would not question his reality because doing so has no practical relevance; his perception of reality is limited to the five senses, so why pursue whether or not his perception accurately represents what reality actually is? Since an enlightened person who lacks philosophical skills is too much a contradiction to reconcile, let's work with a philosophically skilled enlightened person as an example. He has the skills, has become enlightened by applying those skills, and chooses to no longer question reality or his beliefs because he has already done so to his satisfaction.

The enlightened individual in my example has as much need for self-reflection as a corpse does for oxygen; he has progressed to a state where it is no longer appropriate for him.

• (indeed, otherwise flawless)

• (if there are restrictions on the portions of your statements that are eligible for scrutiny, you should express them)

• (I didn't start the wild, baseless claims witch hunt but I did appreciate the irony)

You know your limits better than I do, but I don't think that avoiding the discussion is necessary. By all means continue to participate, but be prepared to bear whatever it is you dish out.

PS - I happen to like Scientology.

 

Scientology is the ultimate joke on religion. It's even greater than the church of the flying spaghetti monster (reformed church included). It's creator has even confessed at one point that the sole purpose of the church is to make money.

That said, it has the same validity as any other religon: Religion is based upon things that cannot be proven, so you can't prove that scientology is wrong either. It's hillarious.

What isn't hillarious, on the other hand, is what it does to people. Brainwashing them like that. OH DEAR, DOES SOMEBODY HEAR THAT BELL RING?

I try and I try to encourage you to share with me your views on these things, Japes, and all I get is agressive defense again and again and again. If you won't play ball, then I won't either.

Religion is seriously fucked up. It's fascinating and horrifying how adults can believe in fairytales even to this day, and in spite of the logical arguments laid out in front of them that so clearly crushes them. We have the history of religion on the table, folks. We know why it was created. Wake up, people! Believing in God(s) is the same as believing in trolls and dragons (yes it is, incoming counter argument). If I claimed trolls existed, but that you couldn't possibly detect them with any of your senses, then how could you ever prove me wrong? And, if you believe in one such thing (God), how can you be so arrogant as to deny the existence of the rest (unicorns, dragons, spaghettimonsters)? Gut feeling? If gut-fucking-feeling is what truth really boils down to, then who's to say that the suicide bombers or psycopaths hearing voices aren't the ones who are right? There is no reason to it!

How does it feel to know that sometime in history, someone invented God? And how does it feel to still believe in said persons philosophical fantasy? Can't the garden be beautiful enough without the frickin fairy in the background?

 

I'd say people need religion, it's how we evolved. Whatever the cosmology, humans need a binding, spiritual myth in their society.

Ancient tribes have wise-men who are healers and teachers. Unfortunately, people are people everywhere, and most of those tribal witch doctors are delusional charlatans who use the threat of curses and the promise of blessings to bully the muggles into serving them.

I've never seen a religion that wasn't a valid world-view (except Scientology) and I've also never seen a religion that wasn't at some point in its history co-opted by unscrupulous megalamaniacs (except Scientology which was founded by one).

 

What constitutes a valid world-view and where does Scientology fall short of one?

 

Scientology is basically a science fiction myth where every alien is our enemy and only L. Ron Hubbards special machines can cleanse your aura of space-ghosts well enough that you can join his elite squad of loyal officers, all for a low, low introductory rate of all of your money.

It's stated mission goal is to collect money and it's founder was speculating for years on how to make up a religion for money. It is called a 'religion' only because they have lawyers ready to sue whenever it's called a cult.

The only virtue of scientology is that it helps drive Tom Cruise into oblivion, where he belongs.

 

If you want my views, read this. It's very closely in line with what I believe, though honestly I have yet to make up my mind about dispensationalism, covered in Article V. If you want my experiences on which I base my views, that's not going to happen. To quote my favorite book of fairy tales, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

As for aggressive defense, what do you expect? My views are regularly aggressively attacked and ridiculed on this forum, not least of all by you.

 

I'm surprised that this is still going. Usually religion threads get locked quickly.

And scientology is a cult.

 

DE hasn't posted since like New Years Day or something. That's probably why.

 

Well, before it's locked... I recommend the works of Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit who lived in China in the 19th century. He saw no contradiction between evolution and creation, examined the uses of logic in faith, and predicted the invention of the internet based on his theories of hive-minds and the evolution of consciousness towards the Omega point.

Also,

Amen, brother.

 

I'd say we don't. Religion was invented as a way to explain all o those things that we couldn't explain. Lke thunder. People weaved moral values into this explanation to make it stick better. We don't need fairytales to teach morals anymore. And we don't need to teach children into believing in trolls and dragons.

Yes, and we will never ever get rid of these people. Ideal ideas does not work on humans. We are not ideal, you see. Taking away religion gives these fuckers one less tool to use in their attempt to use other people. It takes away their most powerful tool.

Thank you for this.

Compare your description to, say, Christianity and Islam. The alien force called the devil is our enemy, and only the good guys (Jesus, Mohammed, God) special methods can save your soul from the evil that has been infused in it well enough so that you can join their elite squad of pure people in the distant place called heaven. All for the low cost of money and your lifelong service and devotion.

The official mission goal is not to collect money, but collecting that green stuff has been a very big fucking goal over the years. Can't deny that. In the case of Christianity, it was created by a Roman emperor who needed a stronger religion to enforce his rule. The Roman Gods were not so demanding, you see, but the Christian God... If you had that Gos on your side, then noonecould speak out against you. Marvellous!

It is well known that Scientology is responsible for the death of several people. Because of that, most people shun them like acid. But pretty much every Abrahamic religion is also well known for fucking mass murder and war. This is ok, though; that was a loooong time ago. Or was it? Can't remember...

I could go on all day. But I won't. I could squeeze in one last bit, though. It' funny how most people I've met, who claim to be spiritual (either in organised religion or the home-made kind) always give me the same reason: "this world we see around us? That can't be it. It's not enough. There has to be something else. Because, I mean, it's so... uninteresting. Nothing is spectacular." And I get so angry... can't they see what fucking marvel there is out there without that ugly mystical glimmer photoshopped on top? They also say that "I just don't want to die when I die. It seems so pointless". People are never satisfied. And it makes me sad.

 

All fair points. It sounds like you're being idealistic about human nature too.

You say take religion away from people, I say let the monkey have his banana.

 

Actually, as much as we'd all like to accuse Scientology of being a cult, it is still defined sociologically as a Church.