Sam, that's just your senility kicking in.
And many would blow you. Up, that is.
Thanks for a constructive and open minded post.
Sam, that's just your senility kicking in.
And many would blow you. Up, that is.
Thanks for a constructive and open minded post.
Religion and money, the 2 axis of evil
I do believe religion causes a lot of problems in the world.. like religious beliefs are gospel (so to speak, heh). IMO, a religious belief is just an opinion... and is why I get fscked off with the PC brigade. Also friggin' annoying when you're trying to deliver packages in the morning and some retard won't open the door until he's finished facing east dancing on his knees on that stupid door mat! Many companies didn't get their deliveries due to those kinds of "security".
In short, IMO.. religion is a load of bollox and make believe.. a bit like star trek really
Regards,
Ian
I do believe religion causes a lot of problems in the world.. like religious beliefs are gospel (so to speak, heh). IMO, a religious belief is just an opinion... and is why I get fscked off with the PC brigade. Also friggin' annoying when you're trying to deliver packages in the morning and some retard won't open the door until he's finished facing east dancing on his knees on that stupid door mat! Many companies didn't get their deliveries due to those kinds of "security".
In short, IMO.. religion is a load of bollox and make believe.. a bit like star trek really
Regards,
Ian
The key difference there is that Trekkers know Star Trek is fictional and watch it as entertainment without basing their entire lives on it. Well, most of them do anyway. At least hardcore Trekkers don't blow themselves up at Star Wars conventions to kill Jedi infidels in order to join Kirk in the Nexus and bonk green-skinned space sluts for eternity.
In the same way that most people know lizards are just other animals, but a few want to be (or bother) them.
HAH! Good job I was at work when I read this, I can just get another keyboard from the rack behind me as this one's now covered in coffee
Class reply
Regards,
Ian
No probably not.
Self centred egotism and new levels of selfishness will prevail in their stead. It'll most likely get worse.
Unless of course, Hawking discovers God lives inside the singularity of a black hole at the centre of the universe, weaving himself a new robe out of superstrings. Then we shall all be smitten for being generally a bit crap and not living up to his/her exalted standards
nb - I'm an atheist so I kinda miss the whole religion thing altogether, thankfully :boing:
Atheists demonstrate as many religious traits as theists, yanno.. they both believe firmly in something that cannot be proven.
It's not so much I believe there is no god, just that I don't believe there is a god. Subtley but importantly different.
Theists believe there is.
Athiests don't believe there is, but don't necessarily believe there isn't.
Theists believe there is.
Athiests don't believe there is, but don't necessarily believe there isn't.
oh, you mean 'religion v2.0'?
Isn't that what religion / religious beliefs are right now? egotistical bullsh!t and selfishness? Or is that just islam?
Regards,
Ian
Dangerous talk Ian.......
But lol anyway
Maybe so, but that's the impression I get from followers of that storybook.. as sad as it is.. believe me, I wish it wasn't.. a good friend came _very_ close to being a part of the London bombings.. I have nothing good to say about any of "them" or their stupid idiosyncrasies.
Regards,
Ian
It all depends on the values you assign to the variables future, population, world, and better.
As the world of humans is partly made up in stories and is thus quite abstract it's easy for things to go bonkers with or without a certain story. If the religion story (any religion) is gone then you'll likely get another story in it's place (for many people there is the money story already taking it's place). Unless the addiction to stories is relinquished.
So, if the world of humans as we know them has indeed enough of a future to develop a story to supercede the story of religion or manage to abandon entirely the need for stories - which would likely take several tens of thousands of years, judging from all the historic evidence that we have for the current version of humans running around - then the issue of what is better will likely have changed. What is better for those humans then will likely not be the same idea of "better" that we have now.
So, my friend - sorry, but your moment of clarity isn't that clear really.
Well, depending on how you look at it, Islamic fundamentalists are the only true believers left. Christians would be doing the same if they still followed the bible closely, as would almost any religion known to us.
This is what (true, unchanged) religion is folks; it's hate and war-mongering under a thin veil of moral and compassion. Religions these days have modernised and have taken some distance from their violent roots, but so far, Islam is best at keeping their religion true to its origins, even though most of its followers (the non-fundamentalists) have entered the age of reason.
Having said that though: modern followers of most religions are mostly good people. I have a few strictly religious friends whom I have incredibly good times with, but we don't discuss those differences much anymore - live and let live.
It's just my opinion that most modern believers are living a lie as their holy books tell different stories than the ones they tuck their children in with at night.
I like pies, i do
So in other words, apart from islam followers, most other brainwashed groups decided to grow a brain and start thinking for themselves.
That sounds about right, and I whole-heartedly agree.
Bundling them all on Alcatraz and then drilling a large hole in the bottom sounds like a good idea to me
Regards,
Ian
That sounds about right, and I whole-heartedly agree.
Bundling them all on Alcatraz and then drilling a large hole in the bottom sounds like a good idea to me
Regards,
Ian
Indeed they did and they thought "let's make a new generation of brainwashed zombies": http://www.kidsinministry.org (that's that camp seen in "Jesus Camp" - fun fun fun)
Like they'd have a chance, the Jedi apprentices would force grab the bombs off their backs before chopping them up with their light sabres in less time it takes for Jar Jar to say "Yousa thinking yousa people ganna die?".
(Jakg)
DELETED
by Jakg
those manuals are really worth reading
Visual Lesson #3
Props: 1. God the Holy Spirit model, 2. Another Ken doll to represent the first man “Adam.” To make him seem more like Adam, remove his clothing and hot glue or scotch tape artificial leaves from a craft store around his loins, 3. A globe.
some of these sound like an adventure game inventory
1. A hard boiled egg, 2. A child’s tricycle, 3. A metal coat hanger in the shape of a triangle.
What, you can't prove that having no evidence for your beliefs makes no sense? Let's not start the "atheism is just like a religion" argument - I guarantee you'll be here all day reading my essays & thinly-veiled ridicule
Jar Jar effing Binks - sufficient reason to call a goddam fatwa on George Lucas. There's an apostate if ever there was one.
hehe.. you and I both know that it's impossible to know whether OR NOT there is a god.. and to believe *absolutely* that there is *no possibility* for a god is both a requisite of atheism and also requires a leap of faith.
Or, if you accept that it's impossible to know for sure either way, you have to slip under the "agnostic" umbrella.
Not really. Atheists don't positively maintain that there isn't a god, no do they absolutely discount the possibility of one - they simply don't believe there is one because no evidence exists to support the claim. That may seem a tiny semantic difference but in this area of discourse it's a vital one. People who actively believe there isn't a god are anti-theists.
Atheism a passive disbelief, an absence of belief, not an active disbelief and not a dearly-held truth. It's simply based on a lack of evidence. It's certainly not a statement of absolute truth. Noone can know if gods actually exist, regardless of their beliefs or lack of them. I can't prove gods don't exist. I don't wish to and it shouldn't be expected of me or anyone else - you can't prove the nonexistence of something. He who makes the positive claim, that gods do exist, has the responsibility to provide evidence. Same as in a court of law. You claim I killed someone, show the jury the evidence. If I didn't kill anyone, the lack of evidence clears my name. Unless you frame me.
I won't say "there isn't a god" because you're right, I can't know that for sure, but I will say "there isn't any evidence of a god". That doesn't mean I'm agnostic so please, for the love of [something], don't be throwing me in a box. The one thing that craps in my mouth is people telling me what I do or don't believe and in which category that places me. I'm a-theist. Without a god. That doesn't mean I deny the possibility of one existing. What it does mean is that I no more believe gods exist than leprechauns, unicorns, Vulcans or honest TV evangelists. I live my life as if leprechauns don't exist - not because I know they don't, but because I don't believe they do. Noone's ever asked me to disprove the existence of leprechauns. It's not a belief, it's the absence of one. Calling disbelief a leap of faith (how can it be a leap of faith to not believe in something for which there's no evidence? More like common ****ing sense imho), or calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby. It's a complete misunderstanding of atheism that's leapt upon and used as an argument ad nauseam by the religious and unreligious alike. And it shits me. So I'm goin' down the pub.
Atheism a passive disbelief, an absence of belief, not an active disbelief and not a dearly-held truth. It's simply based on a lack of evidence. It's certainly not a statement of absolute truth. Noone can know if gods actually exist, regardless of their beliefs or lack of them. I can't prove gods don't exist. I don't wish to and it shouldn't be expected of me or anyone else - you can't prove the nonexistence of something. He who makes the positive claim, that gods do exist, has the responsibility to provide evidence. Same as in a court of law. You claim I killed someone, show the jury the evidence. If I didn't kill anyone, the lack of evidence clears my name. Unless you frame me.
I won't say "there isn't a god" because you're right, I can't know that for sure, but I will say "there isn't any evidence of a god". That doesn't mean I'm agnostic so please, for the love of [something], don't be throwing me in a box. The one thing that craps in my mouth is people telling me what I do or don't believe and in which category that places me. I'm a-theist. Without a god. That doesn't mean I deny the possibility of one existing. What it does mean is that I no more believe gods exist than leprechauns, unicorns, Vulcans or honest TV evangelists. I live my life as if leprechauns don't exist - not because I know they don't, but because I don't believe they do. Noone's ever asked me to disprove the existence of leprechauns. It's not a belief, it's the absence of one. Calling disbelief a leap of faith (how can it be a leap of faith to not believe in something for which there's no evidence? More like common ****ing sense imho
), or calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby. It's a complete misunderstanding of atheism that's leapt upon and used as an argument ad nauseam by the religious and unreligious alike. And it shits me. So I'm goin' down the pub.Didn't really want to get into this to be honest, and it's late so i'll be brief, but, the definition of the word atheist/atheism has changed over the centuries.
I believe it originates from some unspellable Greek word that means Godless or actively denying Gods existence, based on what premise, i don't know ?, but it was an active not passive term, in a sense positively rejecting any deity and it's teachings etc.
Nowadays, it's come to mean similar to what you've said Hank, an absence of belief in God because of a lack of provable evidence. But this definition has been brought forward by various schools of philosophy which, i guess is up to the individual as to whether that holds any credence.
So, when the bible (for example) talks about "The Godless" it has a very different meaning and impact to what we know. Now christians tend to think of the 'godless' as those who havn't decided if god exists, don't know if god exists, or don't care if god exists. To todays christians the godless (or the atheists) are simply people who will probably become believers at some point in the future, when they hear "the truth". But back in biblical times the godless where those who would never ever in a month of sundays accept or believe god exists. Or the real enemys of the faith !
Question is, which definition do we use for such an emotive expression ? the original meaning, or this new watered down variant ? I personally believe both are ok in the right context. i.e if talking about atheism in terms of the bible then the original definition is best. If talking about modern religious concepts and beliefs then the new version is fine. Although it may get confusing at times.
I know you're a really intelligent bloke Hank, but please remember, i'm not, so i'd appreciate it if you reply, that you write in a way a simpleton can understand
I like pies i do...
I believe it originates from some unspellable Greek word that means Godless or actively denying Gods existence, based on what premise, i don't know ?, but it was an active not passive term, in a sense positively rejecting any deity and it's teachings etc.
Nowadays, it's come to mean similar to what you've said Hank, an absence of belief in God because of a lack of provable evidence. But this definition has been brought forward by various schools of philosophy which, i guess is up to the individual as to whether that holds any credence.
So, when the bible (for example) talks about "The Godless" it has a very different meaning and impact to what we know. Now christians tend to think of the 'godless' as those who havn't decided if god exists, don't know if god exists, or don't care if god exists. To todays christians the godless (or the atheists) are simply people who will probably become believers at some point in the future, when they hear "the truth". But back in biblical times the godless where those who would never ever in a month of sundays accept or believe god exists. Or the real enemys of the faith !
Question is, which definition do we use for such an emotive expression ? the original meaning, or this new watered down variant ? I personally believe both are ok in the right context. i.e if talking about atheism in terms of the bible then the original definition is best. If talking about modern religious concepts and beliefs then the new version is fine. Although it may get confusing at times.
I know you're a really intelligent bloke Hank, but please remember, i'm not, so i'd appreciate it if you reply, that you write in a way a simpleton can understand
I like pies i do...
hehe.. Hank's down at the pub. I hope he brings back something from the chippy on his way back.. some battered squid or something, perhaps 
It's no fun trying to provoke someone like Hank into a barney.. he sees it coming a mile off (grrr). I think passive atheism is perfectly acceptable, but sadly most of my experiences of atheists have been rather aggressive and/or overbearing anti-bible-bashers. They call themselves atheists - which, I guess by definition should be the total absence of theistic tendencies or considerations, like as in asceptic (a total absence of the possibility of infection [I fink]) - but they instead assume and assert a proactive counter-stance to people who hold religious beliefs, which I reckon should be anti-theism, as in antisceptic (fighting infection). So I think Hank's definition is probably right, for himself. A lot of so-called atheists are undermining the more reasoned stance that Hank takes.
It's no fun trying to provoke someone like Hank into a barney.. he sees it coming a mile off (grrr). I think passive atheism is perfectly acceptable, but sadly most of my experiences of atheists have been rather aggressive and/or overbearing anti-bible-bashers. They call themselves atheists - which, I guess by definition should be the total absence of theistic tendencies or considerations, like as in asceptic (a total absence of the possibility of infection [I fink]) - but they instead assume and assert a proactive counter-stance to people who hold religious beliefs, which I reckon should be anti-theism, as in antisceptic (fighting infection). So I think Hank's definition is probably right, for himself. A lot of so-called atheists are undermining the more reasoned stance that Hank takes.
Let me quote myself here..
Seriously, i got about a sentence and a half out of that Sam
you know that look you get when you're telling your puppy that weeing on the carpet is a bad thing. That's me right now....
It's late, i need sleep....think i'll go and slap a pie on the barby then get me head down for a few Zs
Seriously, i got about a sentence and a half out of that Sam
you know that look you get when you're telling your puppy that weeing on the carpet is a bad thing. That's me right now....It's late, i need sleep....think i'll go and slap a pie on the barby then get me head down for a few Zs
Ahh.. okay. Umm.. gobby atheists sniff each others' bottoms. Hank isn't a gobby atheist.
That's about everything I said!
That's about everything I said!
My Moment Of Clarity - Religious Debate
(295 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG