[Image-1]
I realize I’m going out on limb here, but good Christ can we let religion find its way back into closets once occupied by the queer community? I get it: solace and comfort, sure. Like pets or a crossword or a puzzle. Or maybe like a good Facebook epithet for how to live your life. But come. NOWHERE. NEAR. INSTITUTIONS of PUBLIC POLICY. You don’t get to invoke ancient scripture when you talk about how to best organize contemporary society. Use it privately, sure. You can even do it in clubhouses like churches–go to town. Be exclusive. But “belief” in the metaphysical powers of a 2000 year old preacher and an omniscient immortal being who apparently invented both daisies and the Holocaust does not get to dictate what’s fair, what’s good, or how we should treat each other. As human societies develop and learn, we get to move past things. It’s much harder to do that when you slavishly follow teachings from when the world population was 4% of what it is now. —Can Tanker Russ
This article appears in Feb 19-25, 2015.
Religion is like politics; great in theory but things turn pear-shaped P.D.Q. once people start messing with it.
This is no way, shape, or form an endorsement of religion or mitigation of the centuries of blood that all faiths have on their hands, but our modern world will forever be marked by the legacy of three 20th century leaders who arbitrarily decided that their societies had moved beyond religion.
http://truthalert.net/images/gun%20control…
So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter what the source of the ideology is.
When someone suggests/asks/demands that you “submit”; shut the motherfucker down.
Wow OB! Equating having religious beliefs and the Holocaust…
Even I don’t stoop so low…
Religion doesn’t suck. It’s some of its practitioners that suck.
METAPHYSICAL POWERS
“But ‘belief’ in the metaphysical powers of a 2000 year old preacher and an omniscient immortal being who apparently invented both daisies and the Holocaust goes not get to dictate what’s fair, what’s good, or how we should treat each other.” Can Tanker Russ
Okay, who does?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
religions are a plague
If the ecologists are correct, we could do with a plague of frogs right about now.
Not a plague ON frogs, just a little something to boost disappearing populations.
Maybe do something about the Bees, too. Okay Big Guy?
Thanks
Stinger Apini
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bmeP_cKN6qc/VMqB…
Coolest name ever.
Plus, HE LIVES!
I’m an atheist, but you clearly don’t get religion. It’s not just a comfort thing like Facebook or a dog. It goes much deeper.
i used to care but now i don’t
So the OB wants to put religion in a closet but he uses the word “Christ” in the first sentence. If you can’t write a bitch without using Christ, how do you expect religion to be kept in a closet?
MEANING
There are those for whom religion gives meaning to their lives. What gives meaning to yours?
Or maybe it just doesn’t have a meaning.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio
Camouflage, Tim. OP wants to express his fear and dislike of “religion” but doesn’t want to get wickermanned. Takes a dig at Jebus secure in the knowledge that the global threat posed by medieval Christianity has largely been contained.
amen!
hahahaha
and op wasn’t equating having religion and the holocaust. he was querying the validity of omnipotent god who created BOTH the beauty of nature and the horror of man’s inhumanity to , well, everything. because some religious folk believe god created everything, has his finger stuck firmly in every pie. like that idiot who said god was watching when the little girl was being raped by her daddy. that he was watching tenderly over her, giving her strength to endure. yup. fucking old filthy voyeur.
From what i understand of man’s history through the ages, people died and been killed by many causes. Some were for noble causes, some for political reasons, some for financial reasons. When it comes in the name of religion, it’s more like a massacre. Even today the toll is high for an ancient belief system.
Seems like they are trying to hold the greatest deception of all time on mankind and will do anything to preserve that, even killing mindlessly.
Having said that, my dad had great respect for Mao Tse Tung, still don’t understand why?
Not knowing your Dad, Klyde and having no intention of being potentially disrespectful I can only offer a theory. It’s similar to people who admire some of what Hitler (and Stalin) were able to achieve for their respective nations. A sense of unity, of national rejuvenation, technological and industrial triumph, modernisation. If you ignore the immense human tragedy it almost makes sense.
Pete Seeger admired Mao but he was a liar and com-simp hypocrite.
Shirley Maclaine thought he was “cute”
Trudeau (father and son) were fans.
U.S.M.C. Colonel Mike Edson spent time with Mao’s forces in China before Pearl Harbour amd admired the discipline and strength of purpose instilled in the communist units. He went on to form the Marine Raider Battalion which performed magnificently at Makin Atoll and Guadalcanal’s “Bloody Ridge” He also introduced the phrase “Gung Ho” (pull together) in to American military lexicon.
This wil be on the mid-term >; )
I am an anti-theist, I think religion is the worst thing that’s ever happened to mankind. I don’t go out of my way to put down people who believe in religion because I also am a big fan of personal freedoms. But if you’re handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, then I will be happy to voice my opinion in return.
A great example of why I dislike religion (particularly when paired with politics) was a quote that appeared in my Facebook news feed from one of my super christian friends. The quote went something like “Don’t get caught up in the workings of this temporary world…”
That’s a big problem. People viewing our planet as a ‘temporary world’. It is not. It is our ONLY world and it is up to us to take care of it for future generations. Thinking of it as a temporary place that your soul hangs out between nothingness and eternal life removes your responsibility to view this planet as the one and only home of our species.
Also religion is a huge step backward for science. People out there saying the earth is 6000 years old and refusing to even consider the theory of evolution as something that has seen far more evidence in it’s favour than the entirety of the bible, are setting us backward hundreds of years. Because, particularly our neighbours down south, elect these people to positions of authority.
montrealman said: “There are those for whom religion gives meaning to their lives.”
Is it your religious fervour that leads you to be so kind and considerate of your fellow bitchers? Because we greatly appreciate you so generously sharing your piercing intellect and sharp wit with us. And I say that sincerely … without the slightest hint of sarcasm.
1000 likes for hoist about the ‘temporary world’
I’m fine with religion as a personal philosophy but it goes off the rails when one religion starts to see another as inferior or a competitor to be vanquished. It also goes awry when individuals feel that they need to save other people from they sins.
Keep it to yourself or within your group and we’ll all be just fine!
God did not invent anything. God created things seen and unseen but He certainly did not “invent” the Holocaust. Man thought up the Holocaust because of the evil and hatred in his heart. All God created was good until man fucked it up which did not take long. Only two humans on earth, a deceiver and there you have it, mayhem, all hell breaks loose! Hold on people you’re in for a bumpy ride.
Yours truly.
So, an empty Earthly Paradise is a hap…….?
In his case, it would just simply be empty.
There is no god so relax and have a beer! And a joint.
#jihadbacon
“Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses.” – Arthur C. Clarke
http://i.imgur.com/zHmLHO2.jpg
Thank you, Paingirl, that was perfect.
I gotta be setting a record for the worst like to dislike ratio, even with this comment section being dominated by atheists. Can someone pull some stats for me?
While they’re trying to make the national anthem gender-neutral,
they should throw out all the damn god stuff too.
That’s a lower case g…
I only capitalize PROPER nouns.
I am very angry!
I’m not an atheist. I simply believe in the possibilities of the universe, of that which we have yet to discover. A bearded old git perched on a bloody cloud and a nasty, vengeful one at that, doesn’t appeal to me on any level. Ancient tripe created by babbling old farts who wanted to control the masses and, subsequently, their purse strings.
I think religion had it’s place in society for better or worse but now I think it is outdated. People need to develop the ability to think critically and not lean on the Scriptures, the Koran what have you, as ultimate knowledge. Those writings reflected the sensibility of those times and much of it is certainly irrelevant now. The Christian right, clinging to their interpretation of those values, have a very anti-science, anti-intellectual bent in line with their opposition to evolution and climate science.
On the Muslim side, you have atrocities perpetrated by extremists who are so fucked up, they attack cartoonists. Not mention strapping bombs to 10 y.o. girls and telling them to go the marketplace. Once there, the bastards set the bombs off killing the girl and killing or injuring many others.
This, in the name of their religion. Is religion the problem? Yeah, I think it is. It’s not spirituality, it’s organized with a set of rules that “all people” should live by. If you don’t abide by these rules, God will punish you. Of course they don’t wait and see if God actually does punish the sinner, they’ll go ahead and punish them themselves.
I’ll finish this rant by pleading for people to think for themselves and not rely on one source for information or moral authority.
Ah yes, more applicable term would have been non-religious. I’m not a fan of labels, as they tend to result in the generalizations of the group being applied to a given person.
Happy Jesus Everyone!
Happy Zwarte Miete(y)
*wherever you may be*
Ivan brushes away solitary tear and gazes stonily toward the East.
Because this is a very interesting exchange of views and perspectives, I’m going to put this out there. For all my distrust and dislike of religion, the concept of “spirituality” really triggers the gag reflex, big time. Religion, for all it’s faults,makes demands. You need to get your hands dirty in return for that ego validation.
Spirituality on the other hand is the ultimate manifestation of “Everybody gets a trophy for showing up”
What, you dribbled some rice into a bowl this morning?
Well Fucking Bra-VO!
^^^ I agree. The word “spiritual” makes me want to puke as well. It’s a learned response. I’ve known a number of really flakey people who described themselves as being spiritual but when you ask what that means for them they can only spew some vague drivel along the lines of being “one with the planet”.
I think it started with the decline of organized religion. When you asked people in the 70s and 80s if they went to church they felt they had to have an alternative answer so they said, “No but i am a spiritual person.” *puke*
The irony is that the “spiritual” people are usually the most self-centred, undependable people you will ever meet. It’s as if they see it as an excuse to be flakey. Their too busy running around being spiritual to be a decent person.
RSVPS
Ho!$t (11:38AM)
“Also religion is a huge step backward for science.”
Do you worship science? Do you wish to see humanity reduced to the rigours of scientific observation and measurement, to little more than instances of matter-in-motion? Do you look forward to an apocalyptic Brave New World when all of humanity will be reduced to its empirical truths – for there are no others – and of course for those not so reconciled let them be smashed in the face before being exterminated? LET SCIENCE REIGN! IT’S ALL THERE IS! LET THERE BE NO RESTRAINTS IN CRUSHING IT!
The difficulty here of course is that religion is viewed from the outside, from the perspective of the unbeliever who then proceeds to caricature it as a malevolent institution, one of unregenerate evil. But viewed from the inside, from the perspective of the believer who wishes no one any harm, it provides a framework of – a dirty phrase coming up – “spiritual meaning.” I know, I know, it must be crushed in the interests of scientific “progress.”
The Pussy (11:38AM)
“Is it our religious fervour that leads you to be so kind and considerate of your fellow bitchers?”
Very typical. Unable to distance yourself from the topic so it can be discussed rationally, you proceed to launch a sneering ad hominem attack on me. But you must try to remember what I actually wrote. Let me refresh your memory: “There are those for whom religion gives meaning to their lives.” Did I say I was one of them? Of course not but, unlike you, I am able to understand the value religion has for them. It’s called “perspective, something you clearly lack. But it was good to hear that you appreciate my “piercing intellect and sharp wit.” You should take notes.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Spirituality is hard to define. I see it as a connection to something that defies common logic. Like looking at breath-taking scenery. Why is it breath-taking? They’re just mountains, land formed by erosion and tectonic forces. What is it about them that gives an emotional connection? Spirituality resides there.
Of course, if I erect a building in which to worship those mountains, invite a group of followers to also worship them, make the followers listen to me and me alone concerning those mountains and life in general, makes rules concerning worship of those mountains where inadherence results in punishment and demonize those who don’t think the mountains are all that, then I’ve got myself a bona fide religion.
^^^ You can call your new religion Crispyanity.
^^^…but as a committed Eggian I will feel it is necessary to convert all of your followers to my religion which worships the egg in all forms: boiled, fried, scrambled, poached, omelettes, frittatas, huevos rancheros,……..
“This is my White and this is my Yolk. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Toast…”
I gotta say, the liturgy alone has great potential.
As do the Sunday potlucks.
and the yolk said, ‘let there be white’
Eggy, you need to establish from the outset exactly which end of a soft boiled egg is the correct one to open.
You want to eliminate as many potential major theocratic schisms as possible before you go live with it.
don’t forget scotch eggs
Saint Eggs Benedict the Patron Saint of Back Stabbers.
Och, yon High Kirk Eggians.
I pegged you more as an eggsistentialist there Eggy.
We need only consult the great satirist Mr. Jonathan Swift who, centuries ago, predicted the rise of “Eggism” and its inherent dangers.
“Gulliver’s Travels” describes an irreparable religious schism that has brought grief and misery to all who inhabited the island of Liliput:
” . . . an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor’s great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after his son cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to “six rebellions… wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown”. The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end.”
So you see, Eggist Fundamentalism is a dangerous threat to all that we hold dear. Oh, it starts with just simple, harmless-looking little eggs, but who knows what these crazy fanatics will turn their attention to next? Will they start to decree if it is or isn’t permissible to have ketchup on one’s eggs? And what about ketchup on Kraft Dinner?
NOW is the time to stand up to this clear threat to our own values and traditions, this Eggy terrorism. Anti-Eggites unite!
I’m frightened by the rise of Anti-eggism and internal schisms between the Big-endians and Little-endians within Eggism. As the founder of the religion, I hope I don’t come to an egg-nominous end.
…but now I think it’s time to re-read my favourite novel – Great Egg-spectations by Charles Chickens.
Mark my words . . . Don’t say you weren’t warned . . . There WILL be Brunch!
Clearly, this is No Country For Old Hen
Eggy, Your new to LTWWB?
I hope he doesn’t start passing around a collection plate.
I’ve visited a few times so think I know who the regulars are. Anyway, my hen is ready to roost for the night so I’d better …. get cracking! (Sorry, couldn’t resist one more bad pun.)
Montreal Man
“Do you look forward to an apocalyptic Brave New World when all of humanity will be reduced to its empirical truths?”
Yes.
As I said above, I am a big fan of personal freedom, so I don’t really care if someone wants to be religious. In my own view, I think it’s stupid but I don’t actively put people down for being Christian or Islamic or whatever.
I do, however, think holding certain beliefs in a large-scale (such the one I mentioned above about our world being “temporary”) are dangerous and detrimental to the advancement of human kind in any regard – scientific or otherwise. I also think that religion has no place in government for the same reason.
Some people simply like to believe that there is something after life because it helps with the pain of losing a loved one or the fear of their own mortality. That’s harmless.
CONTRADICION & UNRESTRAINED EGOTISM
RSVP
Ho!$t (02/26, 12:18AM)
So if you believe that humanity should be reduced to empirical “truths,” those that are the outcomes of scientific observation and measurement, your claim that you are a “big fan of personal freedom” is incoherent since – wait for it – personal freedom is not and cannot be the outcome of scientific observation and measurement. Such personal freedom, in other words, subsists at another (and higher) level but it is just such a higher level which you reject. You stand convicted of self-contradiction “ex suae orae” (that’ s Latin for out of your own mouth).
You must understand that’s it’s not a matter whether you “don’t really care is someone wants to be religious” – I don’t really care if you don’t really care – but, unlike your unrestrained egotism, at least I know that my not caring, like yours, is not the issue . But I know that you will never understand that because – wait for it -you don’t happen to care which clearly is all that matters.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio
*Contradiction*
People naturally depsise all religions because it confirms that they’re all scum lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdDOWUPzrW…
Most who claim to be Christians are hypocrites,They are the ‘friends’ who are there waiting to push you over that proverbial ledge.Then watch you splat to the ground.
The real problem is all of you have simply , not brought the one & only true God into your wretched life.
But luckily the Flying Sphagetti Monster is not a vengeful deity. It doesn’t care if you delude yourself by worshiping false god’s . It has no need for vengeance against you & your children for perceived wrongs. Has no use for fancy buildings to worship in, or having You give ” it ” your hard earned money .
No the one true God , the FSM just wants you to live ,love & laugh as much as you can in your brief fling with corporal existence. So pass the sauce please open another bottle of wine & enjoy yourselves …. After all the FSM is the creator of the multiverse, not at all responsible for what goes on in it 😜
Praise be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Damn! I hope I don’t lose too many of the followers of my Eggist religion to this new cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s hard to compete with their offering of pasta and tasty sauces. This is how it happens…something new and better always comes along…
well, pasta is made with eggs, so we could combine the two
tho, i like rice noodles too, ahh what a dilemma
Yes. A united religion. And we could have a cult uniform – the unitard – to symbolize our unity. The new name would be: The Unitard Cult of Egg Noodles and Sauce.
I think this is starting to come together. It has a certain understated idiocy that scratches me where I itch.
sounds grand, as long as there’s no tithing or kneeling
Where’s Ho!$t? Where is that boy?
Historically the blending of food based belief systems has led to homogeniety and disappointment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja3Die31ih…
I’m not saying it can’t be pulled off; but a deft hand is needed.
Montreal Man, your assertion that “personal freedom is not and cannot be the outcome of scientific observation and measurement” is incoherent. Personal Freedom and scientific observation are two separate entities. Science defines the world around us so that we have a better understanding of why and how things work. If anything, this enables greater personal freedom. Religion relies on gospel and ancient texts to determine how things work and if you don’t obey these texts you are threatened with eternal damnation. Of these two, science and religion, which do you believe offers a greater opportunity for personal freedom? You often site that training and education are different things – and that knowledge is power. Personal freedom could not exist without the power of the individual, an individual can not be empowered without knowledge. Religion is training people how to behave and what to believe, science seeks to understand the truths about the world around us. But it’s not just science, philosophy and history and the art of languages, among many other things, are also important.
And I don’t care if you don’t care that I don’t care so na na na.
What happened to Nukka? I should ask, which one of you is Nukka?
No one and everyone, ohhappyday.
The Church of Jesus Christ and Lord Master Mister Meaty… anyone? Free beer, weed and pepernoten!
RSVP
Ho!$t (02/26/ 8:14PM)
“Montreal Man (sic), your assertion that ‘personal freedom is not and cannot be the outcome of scientific observation and measurement ‘ is incoherent. Personal freedom and scientific observation are two separate entities.” Thank you for confirming my point.
“Science defines the world around us so that we have a better understanding of how things work. If anything, this enables greater personal freedom.” There is no cause-effect relationship (or any other) between a knowledge of “how things work” and “personal freedom.” Like you said, they are separate entities.
“Religion relies on gospel an ancient texts to define how things work and if you don’t obey these texts you are threatened with eternal damnation. Of these two, science and religion, which do you believe offers a greater opportunity for personal freedom?”
But you are distorting what I said. I wasn’t speaking about institutional religion – the gospel and texts all that – but simply that for some religious belief provides a framework of meaning for their lives. We have already seen that science does not provide any “opportunity for personal freedom” since they are separate entities. To fault religion for not providing an opportunity for personal freedom is similarly incoherent since it was never the purpose of religion to do so. You are condemning religion for that which was never its point.
“You often site sic) that training and education are different things – and that knowledge is power. Personal freedom could not exist without the power of the individual, an individual cannot be empowered without knowledge.”
Well, you’ve got the first part right – I have indeed maintained that training and education are different things, that the first aims at the cultivation of specific skills related to specific tasks and education aims at the cultivation of general understanding where by “understanding” is meant contextualizing that which is to be understood – putting it in a cognitive perspective – which lifts it out of the realm of simple skills. However, your reference to “power” is puzzling. What do you mean by “power?” If you simply mean the ability to control somebody or something – an instrumentalist view of “power” – then no, I have never maintained that the aim of education is “power” nor that it aimed at “knowledge” by which I assume you mean scientific knowledge. In that case I disagree with that as well. But maybe you mean something else by “power” and “knowledge” which you might want to explain to us now.
“Religion is training people how to behave and what to believe, science seeks to understand the truths about the world around us.”
So we have come full circle. Your caricature of religion does not correspond in any way to my claim that for some it provides a framework of meaning for their lives. But your claim that science seeks to understand the “truths” is true only in the diminished sense that such “truths” must be reduced to those discovered by scientific observation and measurement. In other words, the “truths” about the world are true because they are – wait for it – scientific truths. Do you see a bit of circularity – as well as incoherence – here? Indeed, you obviously do worship science with what can only be described as “religious” fervour which, oddly, reduces your own life to just meaningless matter-in-motion.
Nice talking.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
out of all this, I only know one thing for sure.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/…
Well, actually, you are the one who started gearing this discussion towards science vs religion – but yes, I do hold science (and truth) in a much higher regard than I do religion. In fact, I do not acknowledge religion as having any credibility whatsoever.
Your most recent post is also the only place that seems to suggest the point you were, in fact, trying to make is that “religious belief provides a framework of meaning for their lives”. This is a point I’ve already acknowledged above, which is where the ‘personal freedom’ aspect of this conversation originated. People are free to believe what they want, you can BELIEVE that there is a gremlin that lives in the cupboard who eats socks and if he catches you masturbating he’s going to rip off your nipples. You can BELIEVE that there are little tiny nymphs that float around in the forest granting wishes but only the pure of heart can see them. You can believe anything as long as you have been conditioned well enough and there are enough people around you telling you that it is the truth. 1 + 1 will always equal 2, regardless of what you believe.
My problem is not with people searching for meaning in life and finding it in a spiritual sense but with organized religion, extremist religion and/or religion having any place in the formation of policy and law by government. Regardless of what you BELIEVE, the earth is billions of years old (not 6000) and the likelihood that all living things on this planet evolved over time is far more plausible than the idea that they were placed here in one day by a space ghost. So I would prefer that we do not base our actions as a collective on fables and rather on the best information that we currently have available to us.
Knowledge is Power in reference to personal freedom in the form of an analogy = Two slaves are given command of a galleon and told that the first one to find the ‘new world’ will be granted freedom. One believes the earth is flat, the other knows the earth is round. The first slave sails a few miles but is too scared to lose sight of the coast line, so he turns around and remains in captivity. The second slave makes it to the new world and becomes free.
You can have personal freedom with/without science, you can have personal freedom with/without religion. You also don’t have to choose between science and religion, despite the fact that a lot of accumulated knowledge disproves much of what religion offers, you can (as many do) pretend the bible was intended as a metaphor and go on believing what you want. But I won’t join in.
My bottom line – I am Ok with the fact that I’m going to die one day, along with everyone I know and love. I don’t know what will happen after I die but I do not believe what any religion tells me will happen – because they don’t know either. I am aware that there are many things science doesn’t know yet, as well, but I am not willing to believe that the absence of documented observation is evidence for God.
CORRECTION: I did mention that religion is a step backward for science in my first comment. I should clarify that – it is a step backward PERIOD.
YOUR BOTTOM LINE
Once again you are looking at institutional religion from the perspective of an unbeliever. I was talking about religion from the perspective of a believer. For them it provides meaning to their lives. For them, for you to say that “the absence of documented observation is evidence for God” is incoherent. Such “documented observation” is irrelevant to the issue of their belief in the existence of God. But as I said in my last comment, you are just as much a “true believer” as they are except your “true belief” is in science. In other words, your belief is in the absence of belief. Science will never “know” anything about what will happen after you die. It’s a matte of belief which you either have or not. So enjoy yourself as a meaningless bit of matter-in-motion.
I’m sure that, from the perspective of a believer in space ghosts, my reasoning would be incoherent.
Friday, February 27, 2015.
On this day in science – Paper Disproved Spock.
R.I.P Mr. Nimoy.
Yeah that was a serious bummer to read. Especially since 2 of the articles I read called him “The actor who protrayed ‘Dr.Spock’ on Star Trek.”
\//,
That’s modern journalism for you….
I prefer to remember him as as cultural icon and Renaissance man who wasn’t afraid to drop acid with the Manson Family
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRA…
so many great memories http://i.imgur.com/FrEVrc3.png
My new favourite acronym , as tweeted near the end of Spocks life …. LLAP
THE DOGMA OF SCIENTISM
RSVP
Ho!$t (02/27, 3:31PM)
“I’m sure that from the perspective of a believer in space ghosts, my reasoning would be incoherent.”
But the reference was not to “space ghosts” but to your incoherent criticism that for believers “the absence of documented observation is evidence for God.” If you’re going to smear someone at least get the quotation right, particularly since it is your own.
In any case, you are a sterling example of what in philosophy is called “scientism,” the dogmatic faith in the total efficacy of science and for a very good reason – science is all that there is. Nothing else really counts. It is a very common current malaise. Given its unshakeable materialist foundations – it is after all a dogmatic ideology – to raise the question of “meaning” is incoherent because it transcends the materialist conceptual framework of matter-in-motion. For example this conversation would be incoherent to the true believers in scientism since it is not reducible to such matter-in-motion. But I know you will never understand this. I don’t say that in a critical sense but simply as a matter of fact.
So have a good one where “good” of course is to be understood purely in terms of measurable sensory outcomes, as in “good belly feel.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/…
A belief in god (aka space ghost) is incoherent.
So is a belief in the total efficacy of science. Your sentence is inexplicable in scientific terms. That is because science is unable to engage anything above the level of matter-in-motion. Your “thought” was above that level, but not by much.
Only one way to settle this MontrealMan. Arm Wrestle. Winner is the most coherent.
I would but I don’t want to embarrass you any more. It looks lie I’m going to have to call you “The Board” again. Sorry.
I didn’t realize you’d called me ‘the board’ in the first place. That’s really hurtful, Montreal Man. That really gets me in the go-nads.
I dunno, you really aren’t well endowed ‘up there’ hoist.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/27/400-men-cut-…
400m men cut their testicles off believing it would help them meet god. I bet they said ‘oh god’ a few times.
RSVP
The Board (03/01, 2:58PM)
Yeah, it was quite some time ago but I said something like, “Talking to you is like talking to a board.” The reference wasn’t to your gonads but rather to your mind or, more properly, your lack of one. Sorry but it has to be.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
The trouble with being anti-religious is you cannot believe in Hell, any more than you can believe in Barsoom, Mordor or Fairview.
You can, however, believe in a Nepalese Prison.
And today, that’s very satisfying indeed.
Oh, yes, Ivan. The Nepalese are known for their hospitality. I do hope they make their newest “guest” feel very comfortable, as he settles in for an extended stay. (Although I suspect the “amenities” at their establishments won’t be as plush as he could have hoped for here. They probably have far less to offer in terms of recreational and vocational opportunities.)
Sometimes, there is justice, and maybe, just maybe, that helps me believe in a good deity (or at least karma) just a wee bit more.
And to think, I raged and fulminated against our incompetent legal system and ridiculous loopholes that allowed that degenerate garden gnome with his unctuous smirk to “evade” justice.
I must learn to have more patience and faith. As the old maxim goes – “God’s wheels grind slowly; but they do grind small”
The only vocational opportunity he deserves is helping Gurkhas with their kukri drill
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/20/…
hahah I was talking about your lack of BOOBS hoist! MM called you a board. as in flat as a.
lol
Where’s The Board? Where is that boy?
really mod, if you are going to get rid of one comment, get rid of the related ones or the remaining hand there like snot from one’s nose on a cold day. if the ‘offensive’ part of hoists repartee was the D word, I have removed it.
from hoist…Better endowed than any of your d**** friend’s strap-on’s GDM, Arm Wrestle it out?….
???
Long time lurker. Infrequent poster.
When I noticed “1+1=2” in a post, I had to contribute something.
The following was my first post on this forum.
I still stand by it and heartily join in with HO!$ting the aforementioned “Anti-thiest” moniker.
Perhaps human learning should start from the perspective that god is a myth as are all other supernatural beings. Science gives us a basis for questioning everything that can be proven with enough time and effort. All books are written by man. The bible, koran, scientology, mormon, talmud, buddism, etc. were to be used as reference books based on the popular control mechanisms of the culture that they were written for. All humans need is to NOT be indoctrinated at an early age with these texts for a new perspective on behavior toward our fellow humans. Perhaps that would trickle down and we could treat each other and all forms of life on earth better. Because people only speak from their own belief systems ie. christianity, they cannot let go of the fact that gods, ghosts, faeries, etc. are not based on fact but on an ingrained behavior pattern that will not allow any outside / contrary ideas. There is no proof that any of these faith based phantasms exist but you cannot disprove them so like intelligent design it becomes another point for believers in god to use as a tool in their arsenal to move onward.
http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/userc…
nice post, lurker person
RSVP
1+1=2 (03/03, 5:35PM)
“Science gives us a basis for questioning anything that can be proven with enough time and effort.”
But that statement is simply circular. Of course science will give us a basis for questioning anything that an be proven using scientific criteria. That is just a tautology. It would be incoherent if it couldn’t. But that was never the issue.
Take your own statement quoted above. Can science “prove” that your statement is true? Of course not. The reason is that your statement is not something that can be “proven” by means of the scientific criteria of observation and measurement. To talk about “observing” and “measuring” your statement is incoherent. It resides at another level than the objects of science, those of matter-in-motion. Of course, if you reduce everything to the scientific criteria of observation and measurement then, by definition, science can “prove” anything with enough time and effort. But most things, including your assertion, are not so reducible.
In other words, you believe that your assertion is true in precisely the same way that you criticize those who believe in religion is true. Your belief in science is as much an ideology as a belief in dogmatic religion. It’s called “scientism,” the rejection of everything not reducible to matter-in-motion. But, being dogmatic, you will never be able to understand this since it is beyond your conceptual framework.
Have a nice day.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I assume that you did not read or possibly understand the entire post.
Perhaps I should have used smaller words.
If (I use if ’cause it’s smaller than “perhaps”)
The first word is the key. The rest of the first sentence was the general theme.
You choose to perform a Grand Jeté over it to get to the science part.
I did not say that using scientific means is the only way to make my point.
I wrote “Perhaps human learning should start from the perspective that god is a myth as are all other supernatural beings. Science gives us a basis for questioning everything that can be proven with enough time and effort.”
If I had used “pith” instead of “basis”, would that make you happier?
You seem to be saying “By being dogmatic you reveal an inability to distinguish between a proposition being believed and being true, distinguishing truth and understanding what it is to believe something. If you cannot understand what it is to believe something, you cannot intend someone to believe something either. All in all, the complexity and sophistication required by these communication-intentions gives a reason to suspect that they do not provide the necessary conditions for making assertions.”
Philosophical and religious mumbo jumbo aside, I stand by my non-belief in any supernatural claptrap and am happy to use scientific criteria as a more verifiable system to measure and promote future human evolution.
Unlike these people.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uU4zn5T3znM/T4c6…
Muffets.
The previous post somehow was attributed to another user.
I apologize for any mix-ups. The post is mine.
Rice Bubbles.
The previous post was attributed in error to another user.
I am the one who posted it.
Rice bubbles.
The previous post was attributed to another user in error.
I am the one who posted it.
Rice Bubbles.
http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/nazi-bear.jpg
RSVP
Paingirl (02/05, 11:54AM)
“Philosophical and religious mumbo jumbo aside, I stand by my non-belief in any supernatural claptrap and am happy to use scientific criteria as a more verifiable system to measure and promote human evolution.”
Well of course you use scientific criteria as a more verifiable system to measure and promote human evolution (whatever that might mean) because – wait for it – that is that is what scientific criteria do – they verify the findings of scientific observation and measurement of matter-in-motion. In other words, your assertion, as previously, is simply circular. But tell me, can your scientific criteria verify that assertion itself? Of course not.
But your claim to “non-belief” is false. You believe in scientism is as strong as the belief of any religious fanatic.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio
P.S. Your other incoherent posts are little more than a public admission of defeat.
So much formal education; such poor reading comprehension.
“P.S. Your other incoherent posts are little more than a public admission of defeat.”
3,650 confirmed white flags from you, Frenchy. Shouldn’t you be complaining to the Word Police about restaurants that dare to have “pasta” on their menus
USING OTHER’S PSEUDONYMS & AVATARS
You must stop using other people’s pseudonyms and avatars. I knew that wasn’t Paingirl in minute one. I’m sure the Mod would be very interested.
Your public defeat must be very humiliating for you. Never having experienced it myself, perhaps you would like to share the feeling with us.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
..and the predictable feeble attempt to save face which fools nobody.
Academic credentials verified, beyond a shadow.
So, you agree that prescience is a more apt word than clairvoyant when it delves into the unknown.
One hopes that it enforces the provable over the unsubstantiated.
If you cannot understand what it is to believe something, you cannot intend someone to believe something either.
I believe in reality not fantasy.
As to your claim that a believer in science has an unbending approach, let me say that anything is possible until proven otherwise.
You must be a conceptual philosopher. Normative behaviour is blinding. Science is hard.
http://drtimball.com/wp-content/uploads/20…
Circular logic is often used to prove the existence of God.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~ygoren/1402math181…
How about Phillipians 4.6/7
“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
Ya, to hell with science, let’s pray or talk amongst ourselves and be unwilling to move forward.
Strawberry Blasted Honeycomb.
You must try not to become hysterical. Lie down and put a cool cloth on your brow. When you’ve recovered, tell us what humiliation feels like,
I choose not to banter any more with the likes of you at this time.
http://fallacyaday.com/images/49.%20Red%20…
It seems that, like most teenagers with an attitude, you resort to insults and attempts at degrading humour.
I say this with diffidence not malice.
Perhaps we can continue this sometime when you are up to it.
Milupa.
Any time, any place.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/15/…
I don’t read attachments Got something to say? Then say it.
MM:1+1=2 is propositioning you to gay sex.Which is still considered a sin according to many religions.
For “don’t” read “can’t”
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/3cf3c897506d83fc850de016f/images/Bear_on_Plane_2.png
Astronauts know.
http://genealogyreligion.net/wp-content/up…
“Spam in a can”?
It’s what’s for dinner.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/bear-grills-meme.jpg
RSVP
ohhappyday (03/06, 3:29PM)
1+1 =2 is propositioning me for gay sex? You must be joking. It may be still considered a sin in some religions but, not being religious, this is not the reason find gay sex off-putting. Homosexuals can engage in gay sex if they like but, as with religion, I’m not homosexual either. I guess that’s why I find it off-putting.
How about yourself? I assume you’re female. Are you into cunnilingus? Write back soon.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
My mother was a nun for many years before she quit in disgust. Disgust that the church would influence people to do things that hurt other people, all in the name of god, at any cost. In the end she did not believe that any human could be an interface to god for anybody else. She saw that religion was power over people, plain and simple. As I grew up, I was not brainwashed to believe in something my parents wanted me a part of, they let me choose my own own beliefs. She understood that true belief comes from the heart and not from the voice and commands of a human. My mom still believes in god, I never have. She loves me for who I am and knows that I am a good person.