Jesus V. Religion

Saw a very interesting video on YouTube today, and it got me thinking about how much people hate religion. I feel mostly the same way this kid does in the video, and was wondering about LP's thoughts. It's about 4 minutes long, has a great story, and for how much I hate poetry, shit's good just on an artistic level, so if you have some spare time, discuss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Warning: This video is not worth your time and features a nutbag that capitalizes "He" when he speaks of Jeebus.

This nut: To qualify for grace all you have to do is realize you don't qualify. It's about His behavior, not yours. You are free if you are in Jesus and the Cross is proof you have freedom to struggle. Wow!!!!! 69th most video viewed on the web today!! God is good!!! Thats true regardless of how many views though. Hoping to make Him famous through it all! Ps i love how it still says 301 views cuz it hasn't updated haha God saw all you were going to be/do before He went to the cross, and He still gladly went. You don't have to hide anymore.

On January 12 2012 16:11 taco wrote: Warning: This video is not worth your time and features a nutbag that capitalizes "He" when he speaks of Jeebus. Show nested quote + This nut: To qualify for grace all you have to do is realize you don't qualify. It's about His behavior, not yours. You are free if you are in Jesus and the Cross is proof you have freedom to struggle. Wow!!!!! 69th most video viewed on the web today!! God is good!!! Thats true regardless of how many views though. Hoping to make Him famous through it all! Ps i love how it still says 301 views cuz it hasn't updated haha God saw all you were going to be/do before He went to the cross, and He still gladly went. You don't have to hide anymore.

This.

Video is pure garbage.

This is pretty good though:

also, if the hindu 8-armed-elephant-god gansesh isn't real, how come my grandad was reincarnated as a mountain goat.

another religion bashing thread...so interesting ;o

this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo.

haters gon hate

haha that comic is so good.. it also attacks the angry atheist movement,(a movement which annoys me just as much as super-religiousness, even though it's definitely far more correct.) and that is definitely overdue.

On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote: this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo. haters gon hate

No one is saying there is certainly no god

The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less. Religion bashing yes, becasue organised religion is almost certainly a scam preying on frightened gullible people
The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol)

Its a matter of how much uncertainty there is your position. In poker the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have about someones hand range. you don't say "oh we can't be 100% sure what he has, so there is no point trying to narrow the range, lets jsut give up guies"

I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote: this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo. haters gon hate No one is saying there is certainly no god The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less. Religion bashing yes, becasue organised religion is almost certainly a scam preying on frightened gullible people The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol) Its a matter of how much uncertainty there is your position. In poker the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have about someones hand range. you don't say "oh we can't be 100% sure what he has, so there is no point trying to narrow the range, lets jsut give up guies" I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.

whatever anyone says, Jezus was a pretty cool guy, fiction or non-

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote: this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo. haters gon hate the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.

Lmfao

RELIGION LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote: this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo. haters gon hate No one is saying there is certainly no god The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less. Religion bashing yes, becasue organised religion is almost certainly a scam preying on frightened gullible people The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol) Its a matter of how much uncertainty there is your position. In poker the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have about someones hand range. you don't say "oh we can't be 100% sure what he has, so there is no point trying to narrow the range, lets jsut give up guies" I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.

what the fuck is "literally right", and who are you to make a sweeping claim regarding all organized religion?

On January 12 2012 21:23 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote:   On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote: this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo. haters gon hate No one is saying there is certainly no god The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less. Religion bashing yes, becasue organised religion is almost certainly a scam preying on frightened gullible people The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol) Its a matter of how much uncertainty there is your position. In poker the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have about someones hand range. you don't say "oh we can't be 100% sure what he has, so there is no point trying to narrow the range, lets jsut give up guies" I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff. what the fuck is "literally right", and who are you to make a sweeping claim regarding all organized religion?

Literally right refers to: The reality of this world and life and 'afterlife' match very closely what a particular organised religion teaches. Their claims about the past and future are accurate.

This is my informed justified opinion.

Why so mad zulu? Is it because you have wasted so much of your life clinging to a popular delusion?

dude, you sound like an uber prick

i'm not religious i just hate dumbasses who think they're qualified to have any opinions on religion and especially dumb opinions like the ones you have.

well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts.

people like richard dawkins have no place in the philosophical canon, he's a scientist writing about a subject he has no expertise in. He's also a populist just like the religious leaders you guys despise.

religion_lol

pat robertson for president

lol zulu trying to talk about religion on this board is just like trying to talk about religion in a fundamentalist church in alabama, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. dont even try bro.

Revelation 2:22-23 “Therefore, I will throw her on a bed of suffering,[a] and those who commit adultery with her will suffer greatly unless they repent and turn away from her evil deeds. 23 I will strike her children dead."

Luke 19:26-28 Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) 26The ruler said, "I tell you. Anyone who has some will get more. But he who does not have anything, even the little that he has will be taken away from him. 27But where are those people who hate me and did not want me to rule over them? Bring them here and kill them right here in front of me." ' 28When Jesus had said this, he went on ahead of them towards Jerusalem.

Jesus was a piece of shit, too. He gave no "revealed truth" and acted exactly like dude in warlord-controlled palestine would have

I think maybe you guys are missing the point. Religion is something that was created by man. Man is generally evil, ill-willed and manipulative. I want to have a personal relationship with God and not be apart of a religion. They preach man-made ideas. What he is saying in his poem is that these ideas shouldn't exist based on the fact that they are not handed down from God, but edited by a man who has something to gain by manipulating people.

I just feel that most non-christians think that every christian is a bad person/they think negatively of them.
I don't feel I fit this description, nor do I feel 99% of christians do.
Look at Westboro Baptist for example. Bunch of fucking morons, we can all agree on that. Their membership was around 40 in 2011 and yet the world is composed of roughly 2.1 billion (googled) christians total.
Let's face it, muslims got a bad wrap after 9/11, but it's the same 99% that are just normal, faithful people and the 1% that get all the attention of "terrorist" "extremist" etc.
This is an unfair stereotype, and what I believe the message in the poem is saying is that yes, religion has caused many unnecessary wars, deaths, etc, but thats religion, a false sense of what God is.

I don't go to church, I don't feel like what they teach will benefit me because it's not a direct line between me and my faith. I don't bible thump and wololo anyone, I keep my faith personal with God.

Two things you should never debate with people on. Intelligent or not, religion and politics.

Personally? I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's (we have yet to identify sex) infinite wisdom has created a fruitful life for all of us, Africans included. If you think this is Satan's work, I implore you to navigate our website - http://www.venganza.org/

Regardless, please stop the shenanigans and play nicely. After all, the world is our oyster!

Tanque, all sarcasm aside - I am a bit jealous of you. I think what you've recognized is spirituality, or some form of it. 180 DEGREE TURN BAMMM!. Sadly, religion has been a tool of tyranny since it's creation (actually, most would argue control was it's sole reason. As an aside. Hallelujah). It's literally still being used today - possibly widely (although not as blatantly) as it ever has been before.

If I had to join a religion, I'd be a Buddhist. Christianity and it's principles in itself has most likely committed genocide at massive ratios compared to any other known principle/threat/whatever (Hitler included, although his principles ream deep in religious philosophies).

I'm supposedly a 'catholic' although I've never went through the rites or whatever. Shall I deal with torturers wielding flaming pitch-forks, probing me? I fucking hope not. On the other hand, will I be enslaved to heaven? - a palace upon clouds, only to be reunited with some aunts and an uncle who thoroughly piss me off? No? It is *MY heaven* is it not? Fuck that shit, I want to die when it's my time. Immortality would be the worst punishment ever. But if it weren't? What if the 'heaven-sent' folks heaven doesn't involve me, or my dog, or how much I like to drink rye? Is heaven built into layers? Committees?

Ok, I'm babbling now. What I've just typed is just a tiny inkling to the amazement that analytical thinkers have to deal with when dealing with any type of deity, god, or religion.

That being said, my church is the fucking bomb. We get you laid, high, drunk, AND fishes on poker tables pre-2007. Oh, yeah, no rake. http://www.venganza.org/

Spaghetti Monster is our New Master

fine print - all it wants is your soul for eternity if you fuck up.

The idea that there is a divine creator who somehow places humans as the conscious beings who should always be grateful toward him while not requiring dolphins and african killer bees to do the same is just plain ludicrous. I understand why people would like to believe that there is a supreme celestial dictator responsible for their conscious existence but if you take a step back it is just a preposterous explanation for your existence, period.

If I see manatees praying maybe I'll reconsider, but as it stands now believing that there is a divine creator is one of the most selfish things possible. Furthermore, if there were a celestial overlord, believing that somehow man could know what behaviour he expects of him without direct communication is even more nutty.

It consistently blows my mind that people in 2012 are still hanging on to the notion of there being a God or some other spiritual essence that dictates existence or behavior. It's incredibly more likely that the universe is ultra fucking massive and we are just another aberration, one which happens to be able to discuss the fact that are indeed another product of variance over a massive sample size.

I don't see how it is so incredible to think that something could simply just exist (i.e. the entire Universe, not just us), without having to have some kind of creator. I personally don't understand why anything exists at all but the last reasonable conclusion would be that some conscious being made it all because he was bored.

I do like discussing these things though!

Some people say that the Universe etc. is too hard to explain and apparently they think that postulating something that put the laws of physics etc. into existence is a plausible explanation. I personally think this is bullshit but I can live with it.

But when someone says that this divine power which created all of the Universe in its magnificence cares about whether I fap or not, this drives me nuts. And that is exactly what a religion is. Retarded, stone-age rules about sex, morals, and food. People who believe in this kind of bullshit are wasting their life living in a delusion, and that is a sad thing.

“Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery!”

- Leon Trostky

i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half.
the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men.

Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning.

On January 13 2012 01:23 nolan wrote: The idea that there is a divine creator who somehow places humans as the conscious beings who should always be grateful toward him while not requiring dolphins and african killer bees to do the same is just plain ludicrous. I understand why people would like to believe that there is a supreme celestial dictator responsible for their conscious existence but if you take a step back it is just a preposterous explanation for your existence, period. If I see manatees praying maybe I'll reconsider, but as it stands now believing that there is a divine creator is one of the most selfish things possible. Furthermore, if there were a celestial overlord, believing that somehow man could know what behaviour he expects of him without direct communication is even more nutty. It consistently blows my mind that people in 2012 are still hanging on to the notion of there being a God or some other spiritual essence that dictates existence or behavior. It's incredibly more likely that the universe is ultra fucking massive and we are just another aberration, one which happens to be able to discuss the fact that are indeed another product of variance over a massive sample size. I don't see how it is so incredible to think that something could simply just exist (i.e. the entire Universe, not just us), without having to have some kind of creator. I personally don't understand why anything exists at all but the last reasonable conclusion would be that some conscious being made it all because he was bored. I do like discussing these things though!

I'm in the same boat as you are. Although I do have to say that "simply existing" doesn't satisfy me, it could as well be "simply not-existing" in fact not existing would be infinitely less complicated than existing. In any case I'm pretty sure we won't be able to understand it all as homo-sapiens.

Oh how I wish I wasn't born so damn early, just 2000 years ago people thought up crazy shit that is still believed today...., some people are amazed at our technology but this will be called the stone era someday, we are sooo underdeveloped and young as species, it's Planck time relatively to how long the universe has existed. Imagine what we can achieve in 1 million years, 10 million, 100 million. Evolution is amazing.

All I ask religion and religious people is to please stop saying you have it all figured out, you don't and it's okay, we can't start by the end, we got (hopefully) plenty of time, let's go step by step.

On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote: i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half. the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men. Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning.

I understand the hate religion gets, my dad and mother-in-law are religious, not even super religious but it's still just a real pain in the ass to deal with. It's like I have to take them back to reality everytime they say some wacko stuff. And it's not because I'm trying to be a smartass at all, I let go of the stuff that isn't really a big deal, but religion is very dangerous in that it gives people a false sense of reality, thus making choices for themselves or their loved ones under the premise of something that is just not true, of course those choices are often wrong because of this. Example: hate gay people, baptize your children or they will go to hell, give money to those old guys covered in gold, theres someone in heaven that loves you and is looking out for you, etc. All this choices and ideas are just wrong for life because they aren't on par with reality, yet this and many, hundreds, thousands more are reinforced by religions.

We simply don't need this, good choices can also be made from this false premise like love your neighbour, but it's not like we needed religion to come up that one, it's simple logic based on human nature and behaviour that if you treat other people right they will most likely do the same and viceversa, so it's in the best interest of everyone.

I get what you mean about the crusades and I agree, religion was probably just an excuse as it always is, but it's still at fault because without this excuse people would've seen the crusades for what they really were. Nature of men as you say can be the cause of horrible things because of the circumstances, but if it can't be excused or validated by religion or high autority they just won't be tolerated by the people.

There is definetly violence being excused and fueled by religion and I'll give you one quick example: When I was 12 I wanted to stop going to church for good, my dad ofc wasn't happy with it and yelled at me and hit me the first few times I stood my ground and wasn't moving no matter what. This scenario simply has no place in a family without religion. You could say religion wasn't the problem but my dad, but I know him so well, he does get mad and stuff some times but really the only topic in which he gets a bit scary is religion, and it's the same for a shitload of people out there.

But don't get me wrong good things are also excused and fueled by religion. My point is that every single one of those good things could happen without religion too, and we could get rid of all the bad and/or pointless things excused by it, so I don't see how a world without religion would be worse than this one, it should be much better.

Exactly locoo, The worst part about religion and the agnostics who are trying ever-so-hard to not offend anyone, is that they put a stop to progress with their thought process. They imply there is no point trying to improve our understanding, because it's already answered, or what we do know is not worth using, because its not 100%.

Lets go healthy: Carl Sagan thread!

On January 13 2012 03:39 locoo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote: i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half. the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men. Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning. I understand the hate religion gets, my dad and mother-in-law are religious, not even super religious but it's still just a real pain in the ass to deal with. It's like I have to take them back to reality everytime they say some wacko stuff. And it's not because I'm trying to be a smartass at all, I let go of the stuff that isn't really a big deal, but religion is very dangerous in that it gives people a false sense of reality, thus making choices for themselves or their loved ones under the premise of something that is just not true, of course those choices are often wrong because of this. Example: hate gay people, baptize your children or they will go to hell, give money to those old guys covered in gold, theres someone in heaven that loves you and is looking out for you, etc. All this choices and ideas are just wrong for life because they aren't on par with reality, yet this and many, hundreds, thousands more are reinforced by religions. We simply don't need this, good choices can also be made from this false premise like love your neighbour, but it's not like we needed religion to come up that one, it's simple logic based on human nature and behaviour that if you treat other people right they will most likely do the same and viceversa, so it's in the best interest of everyone. I get what you mean about the crusades and I agree, religion was probably just an excuse as it always is, but it's still at fault because without this excuse people would've seen the crusades for what they really were. Nature of men as you say can be the cause of horrible things because of the circumstances, but if it can't be excused or validated by religion or high autority they just won't be tolerated by the people. There is definetly violence being excused and fueled by religion and I'll give you one quick example: When I was 12 I wanted to stop going to church for good, my dad ofc wasn't happy with it and yelled at me and hit me the first few times I stood my ground and wasn't moving no matter what. This scenario simply has no place in a family without religion. You could say religion wasn't the problem but my dad, but I know him so well, he does get mad and stuff some times but really the only topic in which he gets a bit scary is religion, and it's the same for a shitload of people out there. But don't get me wrong good things are also excused and fueled by religion. My point is that every single one of those good things could happen without religion too, and we could get rid of all the bad and/or pointless things excused by it, so I don't see how a world without religion would be worse than this one, it should be much better.

Again i have to disagree, that is a nature of man. What people choose to derive from religion can be just as different. Some choose self sacrifice, some choose it for the sake of enforcing their own superiority. Whether your father hits you for not going to church or for not fetching him a can of beer fast enough makes no difference.

Not tolerated by people? What exactly is not tolerated by people? War in iraq? Financial bailout? All the other atrocities across the world?
People dont like thinking the way Nolan does. They don't want to think that universe is infinite. They dont want to think it's massive. People want their lives simple. So they flock to any idea that would simplify their existence - whether it's national pride or religion or any other idea. The thing is though, self sacrifice is a really poor motivator compared to pride, lust or greed, and it's quiet limited in its tools. So whatever idea people want to follow it is always led by evil men.


Thing is that i'd be hard pressed to think of any major ideology that is as good at it's root as religion. Capitalism is a really big thing now but truly it is garbage for any sort of progress. Again it is me, and my perception on life but it has to be something "for the greater good." I'd be all for the cult of science, but science these days seems to sway towards making things that have already been invented cheaper rather than better.

On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote: the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men.

man, are you joking? I'm not being sarcastic if I say - I'm 50/50 sure I'm getting trolled.

Maybe, just maybe... something created by the *nature of men* can be blamed on.... that entity which coincidentally (sarcasm) related to the crusades happening?

Yes stfdaslkjfdaslkjLm, religion is great and good. It's only the people who created it that cause turmoil, chaos and genocide. Oh, and also a means of controlling government/populations for untold generations of years (literally).

Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!! Again. If you don't follow us, you're going to a horrible hell. The BOTTOM OF THE POT.

Anyways - sorry, I'm pretty hammered at the moment. I might respond to this again, or future quips depending on the level of integrity.

Thing people should understand is - Those who are arguing most likely won't change their views. No matter how retarded. Also, those who are trying to are most likely going to get stressed out and lash out, and make themselves look like a fool.

You can't argue with an irrational bible-thumper about how vital and rational evolution is...;

just as you can't argue how big noahs ark is to a non-believer. (sadly, wasn't big enough for the t-rex's... fuck)

but you get my point. Arguing is a waste of time. Let all of us ignorant idiots live our own paths.

I think the word to describe the prevalent attitude in this thread is philistinism, as in people who know carl sagan but not spinoza. yea dude, i am the sheep

On January 13 2012 04:29 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote: the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men. Yes stfdaslkjfdaslkjLm, religion is great and good. It's only the people who created it that cause turmoil, chaos and genocide. Oh, and also a means of controlling government/populations for untold generations of years (literally).

Clearly William Donovan is to blame for war in Iraq.

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism

'i believe in God, i believe Jesus is my savior. i just dont give a fuck' -dave mustaine

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less.

Why? Why do you suppose they are = or < to 0.000000001%?
Why not 25%? 50%? 100%?

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol)

The chances that the pantheist god doesn't exist is 0%, 0% yo.

Y'all cant just keep saying words like zhissle if you aint using em right and dont know what thay meen
yo know what i is saying? yo feel me?

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.

you is unlucky that nature has already called that bet and u will die yo.

On January 12 2012 18:55 Silver_nz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 17:34 YoMeR wrote: this forum is on the polar opposite of the line of thinking the bible thumpers have. and both lines of thinking are retarded imo. haters gon hate No one is saying there is certainly no god The chances of any one religion being literally right are 0.000000001% or less. Religion bashing yes, becasue organised religion is almost certainly a scam preying on frightened gullible people The chances of there being some kind of god are much much greater (but still less than 0.0001% imo. lol) Its a matter of how much uncertainty there is your position. In poker the better your understanding of the game and the more information you collect, the less uncertainty you have about someones hand range. you don't say "oh we can't be 100% sure what he has, so there is no point trying to narrow the range, lets jsut give up guies" I put god on a range, and I raise my life that hes a bluff.

this post is awesome.

On January 13 2012 05:41 zulu_nation8 wrote: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism

great job linking a guy who thinks Darwinism is wrong.
The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. You seem like a smart guy, I don't see how you could possibly agree with someone who refers to Aquinas as non- confrontable by the "new" atheists (lol). The new atheists are simply dudes who try to popularize what has already been known for a while now, whereas Aquinas is some random defender of the Christian doctrine who believes in heaven, hell and every little detail his church once announced as true. Even if Dawkins did a poor job with "the god delusion" (something I highly doubt by having read other books of his) when fighting Aquinas's ridiculously detailed beliefs,the article you linked is the rant of a person who
a) bitches about how "new atheists" don't know all the details about what every known christian theologist believed, but
b) is always ready to swallow the entirety of nonsensical detail of the Christian doctrine (which Aquinas obv takes for granted)

On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote: i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half. the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men. Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning.

I seriously doubt bashing organized religion on the internets can ever be done enough.
When I listen to groups of people (even family) chatting about something ultra stupid like say, advanced astrology, with a serious tone that shows they are certain that what they are talking about is legit and a great subject, I have to count to 10 just to avoid a vicious hyper-aggressive rambling burst that will have absolutely no meaningful effect.
Imagine now raising the stakes so that the ultra stupid discussion involves the meaning of life,what happens after we die, the root of ethics etc and these people show the same level of certainty about their ridiculously detailed mumbo-jumbo beliefs, in essence farting in the face of every struggling thinking man that has ever lived since the beginning of human time. Add the possibility of having an audience around the globe that feels the way you do and you have a perfect recipe for hardcore bashing the shit out of organized religion on teh webz.

On January 13 2012 07:45 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 05:41 zulu_nation8 wrote: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism great job linking a guy who thinks Darwinism is wrong. The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. You seem like a smart guy, I don't see how you could possibly agree with someone who refers to Aquinas as non- confrontable by the "new" atheists (lol). The new atheists are simply dudes who try to popularize what has already been known for a while now, whereas Aquinas is some random defender of the Christian doctrine who believes in heaven, hell and every little detail his church once announced as true. Even if Dawkins did a poor job with "the god delusion" (something I highly doubt by having read other books of his) when fighting Aquinas's ridiculously detailed beliefs,the article you linked is the rant of a person who a) bitches about how "new atheists" don't know all the details about what every known christian theologist believed, but b) is always ready to swallow the entirety of nonsensical detail of the Christian doctrine (which Aquinas obv takes for granted)

lol that guys using the example of a preacher who dismisses darwinism with a condescending attitude as the kind of reasoning dawkins employs, read it again please. This thread is pissing me off.

I have a question for LPers - how many of you know the difference between spirituality and religion? What is it?

On January 13 2012 08:30 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 07:45 lebowski wrote:   On January 13 2012 05:41 zulu_nation8 wrote: http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism great job linking a guy who thinks Darwinism is wrong. The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. You seem like a smart guy, I don't see how you could possibly agree with someone who refers to Aquinas as non- confrontable by the "new" atheists (lol). The new atheists are simply dudes who try to popularize what has already been known for a while now, whereas Aquinas is some random defender of the Christian doctrine who believes in heaven, hell and every little detail his church once announced as true. Even if Dawkins did a poor job with "the god delusion" (something I highly doubt by having read other books of his) when fighting Aquinas's ridiculously detailed beliefs,the article you linked is the rant of a person who a) bitches about how "new atheists" don't know all the details about what every known christian theologist believed, but b) is always ready to swallow the entirety of nonsensical detail of the Christian doctrine (which Aquinas obv takes for granted) lol that guys using the example of a preacher who dismisses darwinism with a condescending attitude as the kind of reasoning dawkins employs, read it again please. This thread is pissing me off.

You're right about this, I took the "You’ve spent years criticizing creationists and Intelligent Design theorists for not doing their homework before attacking Darwinism"
line out of context,sorry. I still can't see how Aquinas and evolution can go hand in hand though

I'm just gonna say that even though god might exist, if he is truthfully omniponent and omnisapient he would be an asshole in creating a world where smart people have it harder than retards to believe in him, and then judge them for that.

What I find mind baffling is the amount of people that blindly believe in stuff which has no REAL backup, and worse, people who identify this bull of crap and don't say anything to "be respectful", or to make money in the case of TV; particularly, every morning program here has a fucking hour of a guy talking about astrology, and everyone agreeing with him, and by everyone I mean legit TV hosts, which I'm sure know the guy is just spilling crap but they are inflating him for ratings.

Also, I've been called rude multiple times on family lunches because the mother of my brother's wife (age 55 or smth) has multiple times lectured me on how X or Y happened in my life because stars or something said it, to which I've replied that "that's prolly not truth as there is no real evidence to backup astrology". I don't mind believing that crap, but I'm really pissed when she tries to pass those false premises to my nephews, or impose them on me.

On January 12 2012 23:27 Stroggoz wrote: well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts.

So religious people are generally stupid and atheists are smart cuz they has the belief in dem facts? No, the belief in something other than atheism has no link with diminished intelligence whatsoever.

It's the unimaginative self-righteousness or indignation that's really annoying - from both sides. Each can be as dogmatic as the other. And this idea that religion is the cancer of the world and the only enemy Man has got to get rid of in order to recover some kind of utopia, and that it's some kind of duty of yours to discredit it at every turn is horribly misguided, arrogant, and comes from a clear misunderstanding of human nature. An evolutionary biologist like Dawkins is intelligent, yes, but also very limited in his understanding of the psyche and he's, like everyone else, harboring prejudices. The first part of discussing these issues seriously is to first be humble and acknowledge that we are just animals making sounds with our mouths - we don't know as much as we pretend to.

Vaihinger said that mankind is a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, which strikes me as a very accurate way to put it. Since reality cannot be truly known (Kant), human beings construct systems of thought to satisfy their needs and then assume that actuality agrees with their constructions; i.e., people act "as if" the real were what they assume it to be, and possessed by a belief try to pass it on to others. Someone not eager to pass on his beliefs to others is alien to this Earth. These assumptions rule both science and religion - but at least some religions seek to establish direct contact with the real, or the Noumenon, whereas science is limited to observations of phenomena. Why couldn't there be truth in religious experiences, nay, more truth than in collecting data from observed phenomenon? I think this is something many atheists don't want to wrestle with, they just want to dismiss it and align themselves fully with science. The only thing we can say about science is that the process is useful when we see it as a progression where the ultimate goal is being less wrong, rather than as a collection of truths. And if it was sufficient and we truly could be aligning ourselves with it fully, and be "believers of science", we wouldn't need philosophy to give us our ethics, something that science cannot do, since you can never get an ought from an is. When Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" he was right, in my eyes, because both have their place and "these conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether.


And I thought the OP video sucked. Couldn't finish it.

On January 12 2012 15:51 El_Tanque wrote: Saw a very interesting video on YouTube today, and it got me thinking about how much people hate religion. I feel mostly the same way this kid does in the video, and was wondering about LP's thoughts. It's about 4 minutes long, has a great story, and for how much I hate poetry, shit's good just on an artistic level, so if you have some spare time, discuss http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1IAhDGYlpqY

Can't explain it in words, but I feel he's using a lot of words, emotions and special effects to say absolutely nothing, it's all about crap and poo.

He got sick many views and will now become semi famous, good for him lol.

*Wow, he found out all thiz truth!!*

The rhymes are fancy and it's well rehearsed, with he camera and sound and all that, but the message isn't my cup of tea. And I really take pride in my tea.

On January 13 2012 08:04 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 03:02 SfydjkLm wrote: i really hate religion bashing on the internet. The hatred the internet dwellers feel towards religion just seems to chop their IQ straight in half. the argument i most despise is the violence that is blamed on religion. As if something like crusades was spawned by religion and not by the nature of men. Also quoting Trotsky on religion, or anything really, is a bit like quoting pokerstars press release on how good their new rake system is. Beautiful words perhaps, but devoid of meaning. I seriously doubt bashing organized religion on the internets can ever be done enough. When I listen to groups of people (even family) chatting about something ultra stupid like say, advanced astrology, with a serious tone that shows they are certain that what they are talking about is legit and a great subject, I have to count to 10 just to avoid a vicious hyper-aggressive rambling burst that will have absolutely no meaningful effect. Imagine now raising the stakes so that the ultra stupid discussion involves the meaning of life,what happens after we die, the root of ethics etc and these people show the same level of certainty about their ridiculously detailed mumbo-jumbo beliefs, in essence farting in the face of every struggling thinking man that has ever lived since the beginning of human time. Add the possibility of having an audience around the globe that feels the way you do and you have a perfect recipe for hardcore bashing the shit out of organized religion on teh webz.

Maybe maybe not. The problem is losing your wits about it. Everyone on the internet turns into a rambling 10 year old when the subject is brought up, giggling at every idiotic joke made at expense of religion, and punching each other in the shoulder approvingly while doing it.
And in my opinion theological discussion must occur. Whether you want it or not, religion will stay. But i think there are improvements to be made.

On January 13 2012 10:52 Mariuslol wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 15:51 El_Tanque wrote: Saw a very interesting video on YouTube today, and it got me thinking about how much people hate religion. I feel mostly the same way this kid does in the video, and was wondering about LP's thoughts. It's about 4 minutes long, has a great story, and for how much I hate poetry, shit's good just on an artistic level, so if you have some spare time, discuss http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1IAhDGYlpqY Can't explain it in words, but I feel he's using a lot of words, emotions and special effects to say absolutely nothing, it's all about crap and poo. He got sick many views and will now become semi famous, good for him lol. *Wow, he found out all thiz truth!!* The rhymes are fancy and it's well rehearsed, with he camera and sound and all that, but the message isn't my cup of tea. And I really take pride in my tea.

how do you contend with mass media seeking out the most stupid, most outrageous people as our role models but not like this?

And to correct the 0,00000001 statement.

Love your post. but "IF" there actually was any truth to any of this bullshit, that there was 1 real God in one of the religion's that's been tracked.

There would be 0,0001% chance you'd not be fucked anyway. That's if the info I found about it is true. (That there's been roughly 10.000 different religions).

Although this post is crap, since it doesn't matter. Should all focus on how to enlighten the people who still feel a sense of certainty that it's true, or find a system to abolish it.

(To bad Hitchen died, he was the man to do it lol)

- a modern day genius

On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 12 2012 23:27 Stroggoz wrote: well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts. So religious people are generally stupid and atheists are smart cuz they has the belief in dem facts? No, the belief in something other than atheism has no link with diminished intelligence whatsoever. It's the unimaginative self-righteousness or indignation that's really annoying - from both sides. Each can be as dogmatic as the other. And this idea that religion is the cancer of the world and the only enemy Man has got to get rid of in order to recover some kind of utopia, and that it's some kind of duty of yours to discredit it at every turn is horribly misguided, arrogant, and comes from a clear misunderstanding of human nature. An evolutionary biologist like Dawkins is intelligent, yes, but also very limited in his understanding of the psyche and he's, like everyone else, harboring prejudices. The first part of discussing these issues seriously is to first be humble and acknowledge that we are just animals making sounds with our mouths - we don't know as much as we pretend to. Vaihinger said that mankind is a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, which strikes me as a very accurate way to put it. Since reality cannot be truly known (Kant), human beings construct systems of thought to satisfy their needs and then assume that actuality agrees with their constructions; i.e., people act "as if" the real were what they assume it to be, and possessed by a belief try to pass it on to others. Someone not eager to pass on his beliefs to others is alien to this Earth. These assumptions rule both science and religion - but at least some religions seek to establish direct contact with the real, or the Noumenon, whereas science is limited to observations of phenomena. Why couldn't there be truth in religious experiences, nay, more truth than in collecting data from observed phenomenon? I think this is something many atheists don't want to wrestle with, they just want to dismiss it and align themselves fully with science. The only thing we can say about science is that the process is useful when we see it as a progression where the ultimate goal is being less wrong, rather than as a collection of truths. And if it was sufficient and we truly could be aligning ourselves with it fully, and be "believers of science", we wouldn't need philosophy to give us our ethics, something that science cannot do, since you can never get an ought from an is. When Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" he was right, in my eyes, because both have their place and "these conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether. And I thought the OP video sucked. Couldn't finish it.

I agree with you a lot, just a couple pointers

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition."

-Albert Einstein

That quote you used of Einstein is either not true or needs context, I think I remember the letter in which it was used, not completely sure but will look into it when I have the time. That said Einstein did hate being called an atheist, that is because that word is poor to define most "atheists" believes, the problem here is definitions, I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that there is no Christian or Muslim God, but my believes are that it's plausible that something/someone started this universe, still doesn't help our cause because then who started the starters? it's pointless and theres just no answer so for now we just stay with "agnostic atheist" which means we don't/can't know right now, kinda like this:

in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained:

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.[6]

Anyway the problem here is with organized religion, not with beliefs about what's real and the meaning of life and such, as we know nothing of it, I could tell you nothing of it.

And also you might want to check out Sam Harris on how science can give us ethics and morals, he also has a book on it called The Moral Landscape, not saying I 100% agree with him but can't hurt to hear his arguments, he's one of my favorite lecturers because he keeps things as simple as possible and doesn't really try to confuse the audience so that they just have to agree with him like so many other lecturers do.

why would you want to get your ethics and morals from science lol

why wouldn't you?

science appears to have excellent morals and ethics, when compared to contemporary religions. science allows me to fap. it also seems to recommend that women in sweltering heat do not cover their body totally.

On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote: You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether.

dogmatism is the main problem with organized religion (also it's pre-requisite). Philosophical concepts that exceed the logical realm are flamed along with the religious blindness by atheists around the world and it's true that they shouldn't. However, this is something that organized religion should partly be blamed for as well... You can't really blame atheists that flame on the web and classify them the same as the brain-dead fanatic followers of organized religion. Said atheists might be somewhat sort-sighted (trivially in comparison to most religious people imo ), but their actions are easily fueled by the prevailing sheer stupidity that is cultivated by religious corporations around the world.
I thought of an analogy with black people but it's stupid. =/

On January 12 2012 16:11 taco wrote: Warning: This video is not worth your time and features a nutbag that capitalizes "He" when he speaks of Jeebus. Show nested quote + This nut: To qualify for grace all you have to do is realize you don't qualify. It's about His behavior, not yours. You are free if you are in Jesus and the Cross is proof you have freedom to struggle. Wow!!!!! 69th most video viewed on the web today!! God is good!!! Thats true regardless of how many views though. Hoping to make Him famous through it all! Ps i love how it still says 301 views cuz it hasn't updated haha God saw all you were going to be/do before He went to the cross, and He still gladly went. You don't have to hide anymore.

I agree. This guy is a delusional drooler.

edit: The relationship between science and human values.

On January 13 2012 14:27 nolan wrote: science appears to have excellent morals and ethics, when compared to contemporary religions. science allows me to fap. it also seems to recommend that women in sweltering heat do not cover their body totally.

Science "appears" to have excellent morals and ethics? What are you talking about? Science has none to offer, since it is concerned with what is (prescriptive or normative statements), whereas morals and ethics are ought statements. And it is well recognized in philosophy (under Hume's law) that you cannot get an ought from an is.

On January 13 2012 14:35 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote: You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether. dogmatism is the main problem with organized religion (also it's pre-requisite). Philosophical concepts that exceed the logical realm are flamed along with the religious blindness by atheists around the world and it's true that they shouldn't. However, this is something that organized religion should partly be blamed for as well... You can't really blame atheists that flame on the web and classify them the same as the brain-dead fanatic followers of organized religion. Said atheists might be somewhat sort-sighted (trivially in comparison to most religious people imo ), but their actions are easily fueled by the prevailing sheer stupidity that is cultivated by religious corporations around the world. I thought of an analogy with black people but it's stupid. =/

Agreed.

On January 13 2012 13:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: why would you want to get your ethics and morals from science lol

dude, please stop being so enigmatic and enlighten everyone with your view of things, making some sort of argument.
I'm still waiting to hear why you think Aquinas is the man (or why the Roman Catholic guy in the link you provided is correct perhaps?) , while you claim to be a non religious person.
I am not smart enough to understand everything you mean with those one liners (not that I disagree with this last one)

Nolan is #1. Sam Harris #2

On January 13 2012 12:32 locoo wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 08:57 Loco wrote:   On January 12 2012 23:27 Stroggoz wrote: well a lot of pretty intelligent people in the world have a similar opinion as silver, and their opinions are based off facts. So religious people are generally stupid and atheists are smart cuz they has the belief in dem facts? No, the belief in something other than atheism has no link with diminished intelligence whatsoever. It's the unimaginative self-righteousness or indignation that's really annoying - from both sides. Each can be as dogmatic as the other. And this idea that religion is the cancer of the world and the only enemy Man has got to get rid of in order to recover some kind of utopia, and that it's some kind of duty of yours to discredit it at every turn is horribly misguided, arrogant, and comes from a clear misunderstanding of human nature. An evolutionary biologist like Dawkins is intelligent, yes, but also very limited in his understanding of the psyche and he's, like everyone else, harboring prejudices. The first part of discussing these issues seriously is to first be humble and acknowledge that we are just animals making sounds with our mouths - we don't know as much as we pretend to. Vaihinger said that mankind is a species of monkey suffering from megalomania, which strikes me as a very accurate way to put it. Since reality cannot be truly known (Kant), human beings construct systems of thought to satisfy their needs and then assume that actuality agrees with their constructions; i.e., people act "as if" the real were what they assume it to be, and possessed by a belief try to pass it on to others. Someone not eager to pass on his beliefs to others is alien to this Earth. These assumptions rule both science and religion - but at least some religions seek to establish direct contact with the real, or the Noumenon, whereas science is limited to observations of phenomena. Why couldn't there be truth in religious experiences, nay, more truth than in collecting data from observed phenomenon? I think this is something many atheists don't want to wrestle with, they just want to dismiss it and align themselves fully with science. The only thing we can say about science is that the process is useful when we see it as a progression where the ultimate goal is being less wrong, rather than as a collection of truths. And if it was sufficient and we truly could be aligning ourselves with it fully, and be "believers of science", we wouldn't need philosophy to give us our ethics, something that science cannot do, since you can never get an ought from an is. When Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" he was right, in my eyes, because both have their place and "these conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors." You might just want to replace 'religion' with 'philosophy'. Part of the problem is that there needs to be a discarding of the religious dogmas and being more curious about the symbolism and the metaphors found in religion, rather than just dismiss it altogether. And I thought the OP video sucked. Couldn't finish it. I agree with you a lot, just a couple pointers "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition." -Albert Einstein That quote you used of Einstein is either not true or needs context, I think I remember the letter in which it was used, not completely sure but will look into it when I have the time. That said Einstein did hate being called an atheist, that is because that word is poor to define most "atheists" believes, the problem here is definitions, I can tell you with almost 100% certainty that there is no Christian or Muslim God, but my believes are that it's plausible that something/someone started this universe, still doesn't help our cause because then who started the starters? it's pointless and theres just no answer so for now we just stay with "agnostic atheist" which means we don't/can't know right now, kinda like this: in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein explained: I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.[6] Anyway the problem here is with organized religion, not with beliefs about what's real and the meaning of life and such, as we know nothing of it, I could tell you nothing of it. And also you might want to check out Sam Harris on how science can give us ethics and morals, he also has a book on it called The Moral Landscape, not saying I 100% agree with him but can't hurt to hear his arguments, he's one of my favorite lecturers because he keeps things as simple as possible and doesn't really try to confuse the audience so that they just have to agree with him like so many other lecturers do.

It's a real Einstein quote, and here's the context:

What separates me from most atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. The fanatical atheists are like the slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the “opium of the masses” — cannot hear the music of the spheres. I prefer the attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and our own being. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) German-American physicist
“Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium” (1941)


I'm familiar with Harris' Moral Landscape. I have some criticisms of it but it's too much to get into here. There's no denying that the world he believes in - if everyone adopted this morality - would be better than this one, but he is not logically consistent and quite naive. He's basically trying to make a science out of utilitarianism, which already has its own issues. There are some convincing arguments from a negative utilitarianism point of view from my perspective, and it is a much better ethical system than utilitarianism. I like him a lot more than Dawkins, though, since he's more humble.

People can be divided into 4 groups - super religious, kinda religious, atheists and spiritual. The super religious are those guys we all know that don't really like to ask questions and act like sheep. They just follow every single word in the Bible and what the church tells them. They have absolutely 0 critical thinking. The second group - kinda religious - they believe in God but do question some of the religion-system's flaws but mostly keep it to themselves. They go to church on holidays, pray sometimes but really aren't that much ritualistic as the super religious people. The atheists are generally smarter than the previous two groups but their critical thinking skills are engulfed in Ego so they don't really want to know how or what started it all. They would refute and try to debunk anyone who tries to reason on how the fuck it all started. The reason for that is because they associate that questioning with God and God with religion and that becomes a psychological blockage. Of course there are exceptions and those exceptions do realise that after all SOMETHING has to have created this world and it has to be intelligent. Non-intelligence cannot create intelligence and non-life cannot create life! They can sense this but don't know what alternative to God to put so they are still lost.

The spiritual group are the ones who are closest to the truth. Being spiritual means that you have acknowledged the fact that you are a soul in a physical body and aim to perfect your soul while in the physical state. Not all spiritual people know the scientific side of the universe but they do realise that religion is there to control and divide people. I would put it this way - religion is the net that catches most of the fishes daring to search for the truth in life - where it comes from, how are we created. Those who continue on their journey to enlightenment go past the net searching for something that has answers instead of beliefs. Something that doesn't say "You are nothing, you are a sinner and you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge." That's what religion is and that's why many people are atheists because they realize the ridiculousness of this trap. And so they remain passive, unwilling to jump from their cage, seeing only the net we call religion as the only thing that is out there. They fail to see past it and never come to the truth.

Those who dare to ask and search past the trap of religion until they are satisfied, become spiritual and with the advancement of modern day science more and more people start connecting the dots and putting science and soul on the same side. When Einstein finished his Unified Field theory he didn't really have the answer to all that there is, science just wasn't advanced enough. But he did scratch the surface of the truth - consciousness. He said that the unified field that everything in the Universe is subjected to on its most basic level has something to do with consciousness. Many years later science and spirituality meet to explain the most daring of all questions - what are we, where do we come from, who created us? It is Quantum Mechanics that gives these answers and the reason for that is because in order to understand what everything is you have to understand what the smallest structural unit of the whole is. Finding the code, the most basic level upon which everything else grows. That most basic unit is consciousness. All that there is and ever will be. That is why it is intelligent. That is why it is pro-life. Because consciousness creates and manifests. We are mere manifestation of the Unified Consciousness that we call Universe. Religious people call it God and give it form and identity. They need to put it in a more human form in order to relate to it. They put it in different frames and curve it to the best of their liking. But it's simply consciousness creating forms and expressions playing in it's own virtual reality that we are simply a part of. Just like we are creating our own virtual realities such as the internet and video games using only a code, the universe is doing it in it's own fashion, one so perfect that the characters in it don't even realize it until they begin their quest for englightenment.

D_smart I'm not so sure if life is the purpose of the universe or even the most important aspect of everything that is. And life seems to have come from non-life as amazing as it is.

And saying the spiritual group have it correct about the real meaning of life and the reason behind it all is incredibly pretentious so say the least. And it's one thing I'd also like to address, I have met some "spiritual" people and they have said basically the same as D_smart, something along the lines of : religious people = sheep, scientific/materialistic people = underdeveloped and close minded, spiritual people no matter how much they really know about how things really work = the real deal. It's really frustating, seems like no matter what people always feel the need to feel superior to others.

not all people who call themselves spiritual are spiritual. All religious people believe that they are spiritual. Few of them are to a large extent.

Nice post Loco

On January 13 2012 15:49 locoo wrote: D_smart I'm not so sure if life is the purpose of the universe or even the most important aspect of everything that is. And life seems to have come from non-life as amazing as it is. And saying the spiritual group have it correct about the real meaning of life and the reason behind it all is incredibly pretentious so say the least. And it's one thing I'd also like to address, I have met some "spiritual" people and they have said basically the same as D_smart, something along the lines of : religious people = sheep, scientific/materialistic people = underdeveloped and close minded, spiritual people no matter how much they really know about how things really work = the real deal. It's really frustating, seems like no matter what people always feel the need to feel superior to others.

Ah, and this is why we shouldn't be too quick to discard the wisdom of the ages simply because it is religious. Perhaps the most accurate statement of them all was made in the Ecclesiastes: "All is vanity." Cioran, the greatest pessimist of all, and an unbeliever, went as far as saying that everything was in it, and that, in fact, whatever is not in it is false. "Ecclesiastes is a challenging revelation of truths which life, forever the accomplice of futility, battles against furiously."

D_smart forgot a little something in his analysis though, and it is that most so-called spiritual people nowadays resemble this:



And I disagree with the claim that religion is "You are nothing, you are a sinner and you shouldn't eat from the tree of knowledge." Swami Vivekananda, one of the greatest men who has ever lived, had a better definition of true religion: "To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is religion. Whatever you do for your own sake is not religion."

Well you just put spiritual people in a category of your liking. The "New Age" movement is a different thing. Why do people always have to put things into known frames. If atheists hear someone talk about the creation of the Universe then he is religious. If religious people hear someone who says religion is bullshit then he is an atheist. Frames are created to trap you and that is what you just did. The New Age movement is a perversion of spirituality just like religion is a perversion of spirituality but people need to put other people in these frames to make sense of something they don't understand. Spirituality is about perfecting your soul. Nothing more. Don't add man-made labels to something that is existential.

My girlfriend is a hardcore christian and I'm an atheist. I think the poem is stupid. I don't know if she's seen it yet, but she would probably love it. I don't argue with her but I explain my side of things and she explains hers and we try to come to a common understanding.

On January 13 2012 18:23 D_smart_S wrote: Well you just put spiritual people in a category of your liking. The "New Age" movement is a different thing. Why do people always have to put things into known frames. If atheists hear someone talk about the creation of the Universe then he is religious. If religious people hear someone who says religion is bullshit then he is an atheist. Frames are created to trap you and that is what you just did. The New Age movement is a perversion of spirituality just like religion is a perversion of spirituality but people need to put other people in these frames to make sense of something they don't understand. Spirituality is about perfecting your soul. Nothing more. Don't add man-made labels to something that is existential.

Thank you for liberating my mind, as I could not see the trap. Without your help I would still be living in shackles. I'm pretty sure I could stop eating for a whole week with all the prana you've just sent my way.

You took my very clear statement (so-called spiritual people nowadays resemble this) and gave it another context to suit you. Notice how I was targeting a particular group of people, rather than the topic of spirituality itself. I won't add man-made labels to something that is existential, but I will add a man-made label for you: pretentiously self-assured know-it-all.

And, by the way, you are in no place to speak of the New Age movement in a pejorative manner like you do, since everything that you've blessed us with here, Ô Wise One, can be found in New Age thought. It was also very nice of you to lecture me on what spirituality is and what it isn't, as if it was something that I obviously knew nothing about, for how could there be somebody spiritual on this forum full of 60 IQ sheep-like people?! Of course there can't be, other than D_smart.

On January 13 2012 18:23 D_smart_S wrote: Why do people always have to put things into known frames.

On January 13 2012 15:39 D_smart_S wrote: People can be divided into 4 groups - super religious, kinda religious, atheists and spiritual.

seriously bro?

look what yo did Dsmart your stupid posts woke up Loco from his slumber.

What you call spirituality is just bullshit same as religion why because its based on the same random assumptions based on "faith" lacking the slightest shred of evidence of logical thinking, there is no reason to believe in a thing you call "soul", there is no reason to believe that our consciosness is something beyond the simple biological process of the brain, in fact all evidence points that our conciosness doesnt trascend it in any form, damage the brain and your consciousness will be damaged, so yeah no matter how much your ego struggles to be great, we are just semi-smart animals meaningless to the cosmos.

On January 13 2012 19:01 egood wrote: My girlfriend is a hardcore christian and I'm an atheist. I think the poem is stupid. I don't know if she's seen it yet, but she would probably love it. I don't argue with her but I explain my side of things and she explains hers and we try to come to a common understanding.

how could there be any common understanding between an atheist and a hardcore christian, that is not possible, one is a reasonable being, the other believes in invisible overlords.

it's either god or ancient aliens, pick one.

Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it.

Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob

On January 13 2012 22:43 LikeASet wrote: it's either god or ancient aliens, pick one.

sums up my thoughts really.

LOLOLOL ^

Edit: this was meant for that dairy/cheese picture not anything on this page -_-

On January 13 2012 22:40 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 19:01 egood wrote: My girlfriend is a hardcore christian and I'm an atheist. I think the poem is stupid. I don't know if she's seen it yet, but she would probably love it. I don't argue with her but I explain my side of things and she explains hers and we try to come to a common understanding. how could there be any common understanding between an atheist and a hardcore christian, that is not possible, one is a reasonable being, the other believes in invisible overlords.

that common understanding is called "let's bang each other".

On January 14 2012 00:43 pluzich wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 22:40 Baalim wrote:   On January 13 2012 19:01 egood wrote: My girlfriend is a hardcore christian and I'm an atheist. I think the poem is stupid. I don't know if she's seen it yet, but she would probably love it. I don't argue with her but I explain my side of things and she explains hers and we try to come to a common understanding. how could there be any common understanding between an atheist and a hardcore christian, that is not possible, one is a reasonable being, the other believes in invisible overlords. that common understanding is called "let's bang each other".

Pretty much this lol.

I'm just waiting for her to dump me because she can't date an atheist. But in the mean time...

On January 13 2012 14:52 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 13:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: why would you want to get your ethics and morals from science lol dude, please stop being so enigmatic and enlighten everyone with your view of things, making some sort of argument. I'm still waiting to hear why you think Aquinas is the man (or why the Roman Catholic guy in the link you provided is correct perhaps?) , while you claim to be a non religious person. I am not smart enough to understand everything you mean with those one liners (not that I disagree with this last one)

Why do you assume the author is Catholic just because he is an Aquinas scholar?

On January 13 2012 14:52 lebowski wrote: The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago.

what does this mean? That God was a dude and he died for some reason? I think there's probably some room for interpretation there. What has humanity discovered?
I see nothing wrong with the author's arguments against Dawkins. I think it's weird the author would take any proof of God from any philosopher seriously. I think it's hilarious Dawkins actually tried to disprove Aquinas' proof as if that would mean he won or something.

If anyone believes morals are to be obtained from science, he is extremely deficient in the humanities, and also probably doesn't understand science.

I'm gonna stay away from this thread now cuz anything else I post is just gonna sound more and more condescending and douche because every time this topic is brought up anywhere on LP or TL the amount of like, lack of basic reading, supreme self-confidence in empty opinions, and general idiocy is disconcerting.

On January 13 2012 21:00 Baalim wrote: look what yo did Dsmart your stupid posts woke up Loco from his slumber. What you call spirituality is just bullshit same as religion why because its based on the same random assumptions based on "faith" lacking the slightest shred of evidence of logical thinking, there is no reason to believe in a thing you call "soul", there is no reason to believe that our consciosness is something beyond the simple biological process of the brain, in fact all evidence points that our conciosness doesnt trascend it in any form, damage the brain and your consciousness will be damaged, so yeah no matter how much your ego struggles to be great, we are just semi-smart animals meaningless to the cosmos.

There is a difference between "there is no evidence" and "I haven't seen and don't want to see any evidence". I have posted on numerous occasions that there is proof of the existence of the soul but you have to research several different deep topics that I am sure you will not since you are very egocentric and wouldn't want to come here stating "hey d_smart I think you are onto something". Also, the existence of the soul would most probably falsely incline to you that there is God which means that religion is not completely bullshit which means you were dead wrong which would lead to cognitive dissonance and you would be an even more hardcore atheist. This is just human psychology and your brain would try to protect its beliefs in order not to change which would cause lots of stress and thinking. Here are the topics that combined prove the existence of the soul (which has nothing to do with God): Quantum Physics, Kirlian Photography, Near Death Experience, Afterlife research, Entheogens, Out of Body experience.

To most people science is mostly what they see on TV - microchipping animals to understand their behavior, putting substance A into substance B to see what happens and developing the new iPhone. But Science is, in fact, everything which gives us understanding of the Universe which we live in through experimentation and result analyzes even if it sounds out of this world and is something that we can't see with our eyes. So if you want PROOF, please go on and spend a day researching Quantum Physics and a few of the other topics of your liking and pleaaaaaase shy away of government sites and wikipedia. Find some interviews, documentaries, challenge your belief system.

Zulu what are you trying to say here really? That there is a God and the Bible is true? cliffs pls i got lost with all the walls of txt

On January 14 2012 02:34 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 14:52 lebowski wrote:   On January 13 2012 13:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: why would you want to get your ethics and morals from science lol dude, please stop being so enigmatic and enlighten everyone with your view of things, making some sort of argument. I'm still waiting to hear why you think Aquinas is the man (or why the Roman Catholic guy in the link you provided is correct perhaps?) , while you claim to be a non religious person. I am not smart enough to understand everything you mean with those one liners (not that I disagree with this last one) Why do you assume the author is Catholic just because he is an Aquinas scholar?   On January 13 2012 14:52 lebowski wrote: The Christian god has been dead for a long time, there is no room for misinterpretations if you look closely at what humanity has discovered even centuries ago. If anyone believes morals are to be obtained from science, he is extremely deficient in the humanities, and also probably doesn't understand science.

Yeah... because your understanding of science is superior than someone like Sam Harris, a neuroscientist... right.

what you did was basically look up an established scholar whos opinion matches yours, jack off at his credentials and take his word as dogma. Believe it or not there are greater thinkers than this Sam Harris guy who believe moral values should not be obtained from science. But you probably don't know anything about the philosophy of science and merely read people who agree with what you believe in already. Learn to read basic literature and decide for yourself please.

I'm sure you guys are all fantastic people and great poker players, and people from all walks of life hold prejudices of every kind, but some of you are fucking blinded by hatred of religion that you don't even know what it is you're hating. Put some work ethic in there and pick up a few books instead of circle jerking to other idiots' opinions that you can't evaluate because you've never read anything to begin with please. Sorry for being condescending and mean but the fucking idiocy in this thread. Also learn to judge for yourself what is good and bad literature, and maybe read books not by scientists like dawkins but like actual intellectuals and philosophers, if you don't know the difference, learn.

Woa, first of all I don't take his word as dogma, I agree with a lot of what he says but I haven't made up my mind yet about it and I don't go around saying we should get our morals from science as I don't fully understand what that really means myself.

Also am I right to believe that those "greater thinkers than this Sam Harris guy" happen to believe what you believe? You don't have to answer this to the forum just something to think about.

I do agree with you that we lack a lot of information, we are just speculating and probably doing terrible at arguing as I think no one here is an expert in the field. But as we are all in the same boat I think this isn't about winning or losing, just voicing opinions in the clearest way we can and maybe we could all learn something from each other.

Have you read a lot of books from Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc? I have to admit those and some others are the only people I've been reading lately, I do lack different perspectives and would be very grateful if you or anyone else could direct me to other great thinkers.

FWIW I have no interest in authors that base their whole ideas on premises that can't be verified, at the moment, ie. religious people because I've been reading and hearing them my whole life and that's just not for me. But I love philosophers that reach their own logical conclusion from scratch.

oh so now youre skeptical. My point is don't agree with something just because someone really qualified agrees also. Try to come up with counterarguments. And the only times you can really appeal to authority is if they are truly great thinkers and in which case you'd still have to understand what they're talking about. I'm asking you to consider that really smart people believe in different things, just because this guys a neuroscientist or that guys a professor emeritus doesnt mean you should circle jerk to him.

I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world.

And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be?

What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker.

a reasonably skeptical person would never subscribe to "new atheism" or whatever people call it. For basic literature maybe pick up some comprehensive philosophy of religion and philosophy of science books. For a scientist who was also an intellectual, a great thinker, and who had a grounded perspective of science, see Paul Feyerabend. If you have no previous knowledge of any philosophy of science or religion, I doubt you have the resources to hold any respectable opinions on science or religion, and it looks like most of the religion bashers in this thread don't know how to read. No, reading a random article on why religion is bad in scientific american is not considered "reading".

and no sam harris is not a great thinker, people may remember daniel dennet 100 years from now but it won't be for his thoughts on religion. If you read a bit about the history of scientific thought you will see why people like sam harris are clowns. hence why these people are populists, and not intellectuals, they are only taken seriously by people who don't read shit. DD is alright though.

To make a poker comparison you wanna read what isildur has to say and not phil helmuth, once in awhile there may be a phil ivey who fanboys and grinders all admire but in the times now when more and more poker enthusiasts are fanboys instead of grinders, it gets harder and harder to have a reasonable conversation about poker with anyone.

On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it.

completely agree here. Religion is a belief with very specific rules. The quote is plain wrong.

On January 14 2012 02:34 zulu_nation8 wrote: Why do you assume the author is Catholic just because he is an Aquinas scholar?

"This was some time before I became an atheist, which was some time before I became the observant Roman Catholic I am now"
So you didn't read your link thoroughly either? ^^

what does this mean? That God was a dude and he died for some reason? I think there's probably some room for interpretation there. What has humanity discovered? I see nothing wrong with the author's arguments against Dawkins. I think it's weird the author would take any proof of God from any philosopher seriously. I think it's hilarious Dawkins actually tried to disprove Aquinas' proof as if that would mean he won or something.

"Sorry, but you’re simply not going to get an adequate understanding of the arguments of a Aquinas or a Leibniz—any more than of Darwin’s ideas, or Einstein’s—from an op-ed piece."
Again from the same author, he actually never gets into what Aquinas says , but only bitches about how Dawkins doesn't care to read and that's why he doesn't see the obvious truth. Plus he advertizes his book on Aquinas.
I'm not sure if you really don't understand what I mean with the death of Christian god since you seem like a person who has probably read this sentence more than a couple of times. Humanity has discovered that we come from apes (eg), a pretty big nuisance for the churches and those who respect the Christian doctrine too much,don't you think? Tbh a few great minds had rejected the Christian without even ever having heard about evolution.

I'm gonna stay away from this thread now cuz anything else I post is just gonna sound more and more condescending and douche because every time this topic is brought up anywhere on LP or TL the amount of like, lack of basic reading, supreme self-confidence in empty opinions, and general idiocy is disconcerting.

First of all this last sentence shows supreme self confidence in an opinion, which is not necessarily a bad thing if the opinion can be backed up successfully. Getting past trivialities like writing style is important if you are genuinely trying to put ideas to a test or even prove someone wrong in a legit way. One liners and a condescending attitude resemble cheap argument winning/avoiding tricks.
You kind of burned yourself with the lack of basic reading part, because you did the same thing (see first quote) heh
I've noticed that you don't get into much detail about the things you support in similar threads in LP and TL and I'm interested in what you have to say. I'm sure it's based off the works of the really great scholars but you could try and put it in your own words for those who are genuinely trying to figure out where they could be wrong? Otherwise what's even the point of simply stating an opinion in a forum?

lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit
how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time

what do you want me to clarify?

On January 14 2012 09:03 zulu_nation8 wrote: what do you want me to clarify?

Do you believe in God, Angels, Demons and the Bible?
Or are you just tilted over people who are blindly uninformed but make fun of those who do?

On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it.

There isn't one definition of religion that says that it has to be what you say it is (entirely negative) for all religions. In the context of his religion, it is entirely correct that this is the end goal. Gandhi was not motivated to do what he did because of cheese, but because of his religion, which was entirely peaceful and altruistic. Are you going to deny that Gandhi brought more peace and freedom to India and the world? I don't think so. Gandhi said that his whole life was an effort to bring into actions the ideas of Vivekananda. So what that "retarded Swami thinks" apparently mattered more than what you think.

On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob

What are you talking about? Did you even read the previous paragraph to that? "Vivekananda did not advocate the emerging area of parapsychology and astrology."

The thing you're quoting only said that he is exploring these claims in his book, i.e., what he has observed and heard of about them, not that he blindly believes in any of it. In fact, he says it right after: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study."

And even if he DID believe in those things, he would still be a great man, and according to his approach to it he would've had reason to believe. How many great men had your Randi skepticism thorough out the ages? Not very many, and certainly no visionaries. You probably think that William James is a delusional retard too, and Carl Jung as well, while ignoring how influential they were. The thing that you are quick to ignore is that if someone's beliefs lead him to lead a truly virtuous life they are justified. I see him just like I see Marcus Aurelius. Can I believe what they believed knowing what I know? No. But can I see how it served them to discipline themselves and make them great human beings? Yes. And Vivekananda studied Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Darwin, Spinoza and many others. No one who studied these thinkers seriously is a 'delusional retard'; and few Hindus did, so he is exceptional.

On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote: I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world. And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be? What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker.

Here's what you don't see when you read Dawkins:

http://saynotolife.blogspot.com/2011/06/pollyannism-of-richard-dawkins.html

On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote: lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time

this is an even funnier comment coming from you =)

On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote: lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time

maybe the first time i've agreed with anything tutz has said =p religion is the most boring topic ever imo

On January 14 2012 09:41 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote: lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time this is an even funnier comment coming from you =)

I didnt mean to be funny, are you trying to offend me?
did I offend you in any way? are you implying that somehow I like to join pointless discussions?

hehe!!

*grabs popcorn*

On January 14 2012 09:24 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote: I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world. And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be? What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker. Here's what you don't see when you read Dawkins: http://saynotolife.blogspot.com/2011/06/pollyannism-of-richard-dawkins.html

I don't get it. The blogger is saying scientists can't be poetic? Or that acknowledging that pain and suffering exist while praising life is some sort of contradiction?

On January 14 2012 11:23 tutz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 09:41 lebowski wrote:   On January 14 2012 07:48 tutz wrote: lol havent seen this thread until now, and when I open WOAHHH 6 pages of huge posts discussing religion and shit how do you guys waste so much time discussing religion here? seriously, what a waste of time this is an even funnier comment coming from you =) I didnt mean to be funny, are you trying to offend me? did I offend you in any way? are you implying that somehow I like to join pointless discussions?

You're here aren't you.

the blog's making fun of richard dawkins for being an optimistic guy while acknowledging the world sucks, the blogger is like an extreme pessimist or something and likes to write about suffering. I actually respect Dawkins a little more now having read that passage.

On January 14 2012 02:35 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 21:00 Baalim wrote: look what yo did Dsmart your stupid posts woke up Loco from his slumber. What you call spirituality is just bullshit same as religion why because its based on the same random assumptions based on "faith" lacking the slightest shred of evidence of logical thinking, there is no reason to believe in a thing you call "soul", there is no reason to believe that our consciosness is something beyond the simple biological process of the brain, in fact all evidence points that our conciosness doesnt trascend it in any form, damage the brain and your consciousness will be damaged, so yeah no matter how much your ego struggles to be great, we are just semi-smart animals meaningless to the cosmos. There is a difference between "there is no evidence" and "I haven't seen and don't want to see any evidence". I have posted on numerous occasions that there is proof of the existence of the soul but you have to research several different deep topics that I am sure you will not since you are very egocentric and wouldn't want to come here stating "hey d_smart I think you are onto something". Also, the existence of the soul would most probably falsely incline to you that there is God which means that religion is not completely bullshit which means you were dead wrong which would lead to cognitive dissonance and you would be an even more hardcore atheist. This is just human psychology and your brain would try to protect its beliefs in order not to change which would cause lots of stress and thinking. Here are the topics that combined prove the existence of the soul (which has nothing to do with God): Quantum Physics, Kirlian Photography, Near Death Experience, Afterlife research, Entheogens, Out of Body experience. To most people science is mostly what they see on TV - microchipping animals to understand their behavior, putting substance A into substance B to see what happens and developing the new iPhone. But Science is, in fact, everything which gives us understanding of the Universe which we live in through experimentation and result analyzes even if it sounds out of this world and is something that we can't see with our eyes. So if you want PROOF, please go on and spend a day researching Quantum Physics and a few of the other topics of your liking and pleaaaaaase shy away of government sites and wikipedia. Find some interviews, documentaries, challenge your belief system.

You are absolutely wrong, i dont say there cant be a soul or that i wouldnt be interested in looking at evidence, I am absolutely willing to accept new ides if there is evidence for them thats the process how science and knowledge grow.

I wouldnt jump into religion if you somehow proved the existence of a "soul", as i said i take the scientific approach, if you prove there is a soul then thats all you did, proved there is a Soul, i dont see how that would prove white bearded invisible men.

Now that we stablished that im willing to acept evidence please show it to me and dont tell me "oh go read this book and this book", show me clear empirical evidence because so far:

- Quantum Physics: it doesnt prove anything spiritual]its the study of sub atomic particles thats it, the thing is that its so fucking complex and mind blowing that scammers always mention it to give a pseudo scientific value to their bullshit, you DONT understand quantum physics, neither do i or almost anybody in this forum, the rule of thumb is, if you dont have a PhD in Physics or better, you are not qualified to talk about quantum physics

- KIrlian Photography :that has been proven to be a hoax, a very shitty one and actually, its perfectly know how these cameras work and why they are obvious hoaxes, crazy that you mention it

- Near death experiences: The Body releases DMT just before death, if you know anything about DMT you would easily understand all the testimonials of these experiences... DMT is whacky as fuck when lucid

- Out of Body experiences: This are just anecdotal evidence, that is just as valid as ppl claiming that aliens kidnapped them, if they can have them and actually see things they wouldnt be able to they would pass a controlled test... which nobody has done so far, otherwise James Randy would shit his pants

Well you just proved me right that you are unwilling to learn. You just told me what you already knew without researching further. And how can you say such bullshit abut Quantum Physics - "only a PhD or better would know anything and you don't know." How do you know how much I know and how do you know that only a PhD can know shit when you have not put the slightest effort in researching (prolly you just remember the complex unimportant shit from school). It's like saying "you don't know anything about biology and nobody can know anything unless he is a PhD" - that's retarded and you just said it cause you don't want to spend time. So yeah, stating what you already know from hearing different things here and there without much research and saying it as FACTS only proves to me that you are closed-minded.
And about the soul thing - I never said you should jump into religion if I prove the existence of a soul. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that it is not related neither to God nor religion. That only shows to me that you have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and spirituality and just mix it up. Everybody here knows that you are not open to new ideas and your post proves it very well.

On January 14 2012 12:16 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 09:24 Loco wrote:   On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote: I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world. And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be? What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker. Here's what you don't see when you read Dawkins: http://saynotolife.blogspot.com/2011/06/pollyannism-of-richard-dawkins.html I don't get it. The blogger is saying scientists can't be poetic? Or that acknowledging that pain and suffering exist while praising life is some sort of contradiction?

It's pretty straightforward... he's "exposing" Dawkin's pollyannism. An honest enough atheist with Dawkins' education should quickly come to realize that this life thing is a pretty grim enterprise, and that there is nothing to be optimistic about. You have to be pretty self-absorbed to know about the world's suffering, the selfish gene stuff, life being arbitrary, etc. and still being cheerful about it all.

He's an antinatalist like this guy:

On January 14 2012 09:16 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it. There isn't one definition of religion that says that it has to be what you say it is (entirely negative) for all religions. In the context of his religion, it is entirely correct that this is the end goal. Gandhi was not motivated to do what he did because of cheese, but because of his religion, which was entirely peaceful and altruistic. Are you going to deny that Gandhi brought more peace and freedom to India and the world? I don't think so. Gandhi said that his whole life was an effort to bring into actions the ideas of Vivekananda. So what that "retarded Swami thinks" apparently mattered more than what you think.   On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob What are you talking about? Did you even read the previous paragraph to that? "Vivekananda did not advocate the emerging area of parapsychology and astrology." The thing you're quoting only said that he is exploring these claims in his book, i.e., what he has observed and heard of about them, not that he blindly believes in any of it. In fact, he says it right after: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study." And even if he DID believe in those things, he would still be a great man, and according to his approach to it he would've had reason to believe. How many great men had your Randi skepticism thorough out the ages? Not very many, and certainly no visionaries. You probably think that William James is a delusional retard too, and Carl Jung as well, while ignoring how influential they were. The thing that you are quick to ignore is that if someone's beliefs lead him to lead a truly virtuous life they are justified. I see him just like I see Marcus Aurelius. Can I believe what they believed knowing what I know? No. But can I see how it served them to discipline themselves and make them great human beings? Yes. And Vivekananda studied Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Darwin, Spinoza and many others. No one who studied these thinkers seriously is a 'delusional retard'; and few Hindus did, so he is exceptional.

No, you cant define the word religion you cant say "religion is this and not that", religion has a meaning, his beliefs might have lead him to a virtuous life but he doesnt get to say that anything that is not like that is not religion, im duscussing the semantic and the fact of using that word not his beliefs.

The difference between Marcus Aurelius and him is that one did have irrational beliefs but his beliefs just as the other stoics were quite based on reason and logic, and not on the mystic but dont worry i dont disqulify people because of a irrational belief especially in the context of the time they were living in, i just did it to take a quick shit on your heros that is always fun

He said that he observed some of those phenomenoms which we know are not true, so that makes him dishonest, in a way that he will make up shit that accomodates his beliefs rather than seek the truth

On January 14 2012 13:06 D_smart_S wrote: Well you just proved me right that you are unwilling to learn. You just told me what you already knew without researching further. And how can you say such bullshit abut Quantum Physics - "only a PhD or better would know anything and you don't know." How do you know how much I know and how do you know that only a PhD can know shit when you have not put the slightest effort in researching (prolly you just remember the complex unimportant shit from school). It's like saying "you don't know anything about biology and nobody can know anything unless he is a PhD" - that's retarded and you just said it cause you don't want to spend time. So yeah, stating what you already know from hearing different things here and there without much research and saying it as FACTS only proves to me that you are closed-minded. And about the soul thing - I never said you should jump into religion if I prove the existence of a soul. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that it is not related neither to God nor religion. That only shows to me that you have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and spirituality and just mix it up. Everybody here knows that you are not open to new ideas and your post proves it very well.

For you to think that everyone on here would ever expect you to grasp even the most basic concepts of quantum physics (mechanics) let alone gain enough insight as to make a prediction regarding the existence of the soul is flat out fucking insane. Your "research" (a word of which you make a complete mockery) has only ever consisted of a spew of youtube videos posted by other gimp loons.

It probably shouldn't of even been "almost anyone" as I suspect no one is qualified to talk about quantum mechanics at any length (ie/ past a "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies" level) on this forum. At least I don't recall seeing any evidence (hopefully there is someone here and you can engage them with your drivel and they can promptly shut you down for us all to enjoy).

Edit: And feel free to elaborate on "afterlife research" surely any thing else past this topic is pretty redundant in proving a sould exists.

On January 14 2012 13:29 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 12:16 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 14 2012 09:24 Loco wrote:   On January 14 2012 03:56 locoo wrote: I don't see what's wrong with trying to understand what a clearly smarter and way more knowledgable person than myself is trying to tell the world. And of course I'm skeptical, what else can I be? What constitutes a great thinker in your opinion? I believe Harris is a great thinker. Here's what you don't see when you read Dawkins: http://saynotolife.blogspot.com/2011/06/pollyannism-of-richard-dawkins.html I don't get it. The blogger is saying scientists can't be poetic? Or that acknowledging that pain and suffering exist while praising life is some sort of contradiction? It's pretty straightforward... he's "exposing" Dawkin's pollyannism. An honest enough atheist with Dawkins' education should quickly come to realize that this life thing is a pretty grim enterprise, and that there is nothing to be optimistic about. You have to be pretty self-absorbed to know about the world's suffering, the selfish gene stuff, life being arbitrary, etc. and still being cheerful about it all. He's an antinatalist like this guy:

You are derailing this thread man, even if Dawkins were too self absorbed that doesnt change the fact that what he says about religion are totally true

On January 14 2012 13:34 Funktion wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 13:06 D_smart_S wrote: Well you just proved me right that you are unwilling to learn. You just told me what you already knew without researching further. And how can you say such bullshit abut Quantum Physics - "only a PhD or better would know anything and you don't know." How do you know how much I know and how do you know that only a PhD can know shit when you have not put the slightest effort in researching (prolly you just remember the complex unimportant shit from school). It's like saying "you don't know anything about biology and nobody can know anything unless he is a PhD" - that's retarded and you just said it cause you don't want to spend time. So yeah, stating what you already know from hearing different things here and there without much research and saying it as FACTS only proves to me that you are closed-minded. And about the soul thing - I never said you should jump into religion if I prove the existence of a soul. In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that it is not related neither to God nor religion. That only shows to me that you have difficulty understanding the difference between religion and spirituality and just mix it up. Everybody here knows that you are not open to new ideas and your post proves it very well. For you to think that everyone on here would ever expect you to grasp even the most basic concepts of quantum physics (mechanics) let alone gain enough insight as to make a prediction regarding the existence of the soul is flat out fucking insane. Your "research" (a word of which you make a complete mockery) has only ever consisted of a spew of youtube videos posted by other gimp loons. It probably shouldn't of even been "almost anyone" as I suspect no one is qualified to talk about quantum mechanics at any length (ie/ past a "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies" level) on this forum. At least I don't recall seeing any evidence (hopefully there is someone here and you can engage them with your drivel and they can promptly shut you down for us all to enjoy). Edit: And feel free to elaborate on "afterlife research" surely any thing else past this topic is pretty redundant in proving a sould exists.

Lets put it this way, to understand Quantum Physics you require extremely advanced knowledge in math and physics, so with your shitty highschool physics and math courses you simply cannot comprehen quantum physics, you can just regurgitate what you hear.

I would be delighted if you showed me videos (because im sure your supposed knokwledge on Quantum Physics comes form videos) where yo ushow a reputable scientist talking about spirituality and quantum physics that supports your hypotesis.

Instead of sayign im not open to new ideas just prove me wrong, because as i said, im totally open to any new idea if you present evidence for it, so far you havent presented any, so there is no reason for me or anyone to believe or take serious any claim you make.

So post evidence of shut up

It's pretty straightforward... he's "exposing" Dawkin's pollyannism.

Oh yeah straightforward, his "pollyannism", a term not defined on wikipedia or dictionary.com.

An honest enough atheist with Dawkins' education should quickly come to realize that this life thing is a pretty grim enterprise, and that there is nothing to be optimistic about. You have to be pretty self-absorbed to know about the world's suffering, the selfish gene stuff, life being arbitrary, etc. and still being cheerful about it all.

Yeah I couldn't tell if there was a philosophical concept here or not, but you're pretty much confirming that its just high-school-goth like negativity.

On January 14 2012 12:26 zulu_nation8 wrote: I actually respect Dawkins a little more now having read that passage.

On January 14 2012 13:31 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 09:16 Loco wrote:   On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it. There isn't one definition of religion that says that it has to be what you say it is (entirely negative) for all religions. In the context of his religion, it is entirely correct that this is the end goal. Gandhi was not motivated to do what he did because of cheese, but because of his religion, which was entirely peaceful and altruistic. Are you going to deny that Gandhi brought more peace and freedom to India and the world? I don't think so. Gandhi said that his whole life was an effort to bring into actions the ideas of Vivekananda. So what that "retarded Swami thinks" apparently mattered more than what you think.   On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob What are you talking about? Did you even read the previous paragraph to that? "Vivekananda did not advocate the emerging area of parapsychology and astrology." The thing you're quoting only said that he is exploring these claims in his book, i.e., what he has observed and heard of about them, not that he blindly believes in any of it. In fact, he says it right after: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study." And even if he DID believe in those things, he would still be a great man, and according to his approach to it he would've had reason to believe. How many great men had your Randi skepticism thorough out the ages? Not very many, and certainly no visionaries. You probably think that William James is a delusional retard too, and Carl Jung as well, while ignoring how influential they were. The thing that you are quick to ignore is that if someone's beliefs lead him to lead a truly virtuous life they are justified. I see him just like I see Marcus Aurelius. Can I believe what they believed knowing what I know? No. But can I see how it served them to discipline themselves and make them great human beings? Yes. And Vivekananda studied Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Darwin, Spinoza and many others. No one who studied these thinkers seriously is a 'delusional retard'; and few Hindus did, so he is exceptional. He said that he observed some of those phenomenoms which we know are not true, so that makes him dishonest, in a way that he will make up shit that accomodates his beliefs rather than seek the truth

He's not the only person that I consider very reasonable that has reported having seen things that are out of the ordinary. I don't see why you have a problem with him, did he try to sell his knowledge? Did he scam anyone with pseudoscience? No. Like I said in my first post, perhaps there is something about religious experiences that give important insights into the psyche and they should not be dismissed on the ground that there is no convincing empirical data at the moment. But this is a true derailing of this thread, not my talking about Dawkins.

And your claim that he wasn't seeking the truth is absurd. It's like saying the Buddha wasn't seeking the truth if you found out he had some things to say about paranormal phenomena, seriously. There is no other religion that is more concerned with seeking the truth than Vedanta and Buddhism.

On January 14 2012 13:49 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + It's pretty straightforward... he's "exposing" Dawkin's pollyannism. Oh yeah straightforward, his "pollyannism", a term not defined on wikipedia or dictionary.com.   An honest enough atheist with Dawkins' education should quickly come to realize that this life thing is a pretty grim enterprise, and that there is nothing to be optimistic about. You have to be pretty self-absorbed to know about the world's suffering, the selfish gene stuff, life being arbitrary, etc. and still being cheerful about it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollyanna

Yeah I couldn't tell if there was a philosophical concept here or not, but you're pretty much confirming that its just high-school-goth like negativity.

A quick judgment with absolutely no evidence to back up your statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

pretty rofl thread, A+ job team!

Its a shame baal, locoo, have been raping their arguments so hard.. nothing for me to put in here!

Its astounding that D_smart_S talks about understanding quantum mechanics and then says something along the lines of 'u dont need that complex boring math or physics shit to understand it'

BTW zulu what do you think of these people's beliefs and chance at salvation?

On January 14 2012 13:54 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 14 2012 13:31 Baalim wrote:   On January 14 2012 09:16 Loco wrote:   On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Loco its meaningless what that retarded swami thinks its the definition of religion, what he describes is NOT religion, ""To devote your life to the good of all and to the happiness of all is cheese. Whatever you do for your own sake is not cheese." the word religion has its own meaning he is just trying to clean it redefining it. There isn't one definition of religion that says that it has to be what you say it is (entirely negative) for all religions. In the context of his religion, it is entirely correct that this is the end goal. Gandhi was not motivated to do what he did because of cheese, but because of his religion, which was entirely peaceful and altruistic. Are you going to deny that Gandhi brought more peace and freedom to India and the world? I don't think so. Gandhi said that his whole life was an effort to bring into actions the ideas of Vivekananda. So what that "retarded Swami thinks" apparently mattered more than what you think.   On January 13 2012 22:49 Baalim wrote: Also a quick Wikipedia shows that Swami believes in levitation, mind reading, living without breathing and other ridiculous shit so he is just another delusional religious nutjob What are you talking about? Did you even read the previous paragraph to that? "Vivekananda did not advocate the emerging area of parapsychology and astrology." The thing you're quoting only said that he is exploring these claims in his book, i.e., what he has observed and heard of about them, not that he blindly believes in any of it. In fact, he says it right after: "It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study." And even if he DID believe in those things, he would still be a great man, and according to his approach to it he would've had reason to believe. How many great men had your Randi skepticism thorough out the ages? Not very many, and certainly no visionaries. You probably think that William James is a delusional retard too, and Carl Jung as well, while ignoring how influential they were. The thing that you are quick to ignore is that if someone's beliefs lead him to lead a truly virtuous life they are justified. I see him just like I see Marcus Aurelius. Can I believe what they believed knowing what I know? No. But can I see how it served them to discipline themselves and make them great human beings? Yes. And Vivekananda studied Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Darwin, Spinoza and many others. No one who studied these thinkers seriously is a 'delusional retard'; and few Hindus did, so he is exceptional. He said that he observed some of those phenomenoms which we know are not true, so that makes him dishonest, in a way that he will make up shit that accomodates his beliefs rather than seek the truth He's not the only person that I consider very reasonable that has reported having seen things that are out of the ordinary. I don't see why you have a problem with him, did he try to sell his knowledge? Did he scam anyone with pseudoscience? No. Like I said in my first post, perhaps there is something about religious experiences that give important insights into the psyche and they should not be dismissed on the ground that there is no convincing empirical data at the moment. But this is a true derailing of this thread, not my talking about Dawkins. And your claim that he wasn't seeking the truth is absurd. It's like saying the Buddha wasn't seeking the truth if you found out he had some things to say about paranormal phenomena, seriously. There is no other religion that is more concerned with seeking the truth than Vedanta and Buddhism.

I didnt mean dishonest to others, but to himself as his own beliefs, self delusion like believing it exists is one thing, but claiming to be somewhat of an skeptic (as he did) yet claiming that he personally observed these obvious false things simply exposes dishonesty, how is this innacurate?, he is flat out lying.