The things they do in the name of religion

[SpongeBob 0]

You know what would be entertaining?  If Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses acted more like street gangs than religion groups.

They'd have turf wars to battle for neighborhoods to do their doorknocking...

The busy street corners would be contested for their religious material pimpin'....

The sale of stolen gold bling bling crucifixes would take place from the back of minivans in the church or temple parking lots...

Three words: Christian. Gangsta. Rap.

[Placebo 29]

Constructively criticising religion is one thing, calling people "batshit insane" for being religious is another thing entirely, and an unacceptable thing at that on these forums.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Constructively criticising religion is one thing, calling people "batshit insane" for being religious is another thing entirely, and an unacceptable thing at that on these forums.

fully agree

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Constructively criticising religion is one thing, calling people "batshit insane" for being religious is another thing entirely, and an unacceptable thing at that on these forums.

I never said that just being religious makes you insane, I stated that the people who wrote that one article had more than a few screws loose.

How about "The people who write articles for GSMS have the scientific skills of stoned gerbils"?

[Acecombat 0]

How about you all shut up and take your personal vendettas on religion and anti-religion out of here and let this topic take its original course , i mean i know all of you are pros when it comes to profanity but can we keep it to a minimum here. Calling more then half the world bat shit isnt doing you any good in impressing your point upon someone and so far only goes to show your ignorance in understanding religion.

If you wanna play 'generalizer' then again do it through PM's please.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Calling more then half the world bat shit

I never did. I called the writers of GSMS batshit insane, and they were certainly earning that title with their various articles. "Why is the black man black?" "Arabs are the root of all evil." etc...

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

Arabs are the root of all evil." etc...

?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Calling more then half the world bat shit

I never did. I called the writers of GSMS batshit insane, and they were certainly earning that title with their various articles. "Why is the black man black?" "Arabs are the root of all evil." etc...

I know you didnt but the person who did say that seems as much of a radicalist and fanatic in his opinion as any of his religious conterparts that the difference can hardly be noted ...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

What was that about religion not deserving special treatment?

Acecombat seems to think it does.

'Wahh everyone who disagrees with my crazy beliefs is a radicalist fanatic!'

[Kuja- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Calling more then half the world bat shit

I never did. I called the writers of GSMS batshit insane, and they were certainly earning that title with their various articles. "Why is the black man black?" "Arabs are the root of all evil." etc...

I know you didnt but the person who did say that seems as much of a radicalist and fanatic in his opinion as any of his religious conterparts that the difference can hardly be noted ...

Hardly.

You assume that religion has a justifiable place within society and scientific advancement. I believe that it is an anachronism without any evidence to support its positive claims, and plenty of evidence to refute those claims, in addition to the notion of deities in general.

You also post with the mindset implied in the definition of delusional - that something which in another context is perfectly irrational should be legitimised through the sheer number of people who subscribe to it.

The reality is that the notion that a widely held-belief imparts authority or credence in itself is wrong. It follows then that, if we are to assume that religion can provide nothing with which to substantiate its claims and it does not have weight of authority by virtue that many have faith, the religious are delusional, and I am justified in calling them 'batshit insane' and furthermore, that to support such a view is only a recognition of the clear departure from reality that religion entails.

It is not radical, it is not fanatical, it is simply fact. How you can possibly call me radical or fanatical for claiming that people who believe in supreme beings (which have not shown so much as a hint of themselves over the entirety of human history), believe that when they pray is listening to them, believe in such things as the devil causing all of the wrong in the world [etc] are insane? Again - if people were to make such claims under any other pretext, they would be treated with due contempt. Religious beliefs do not differ from those of alien/government conspiracy theories that are so widely, and hypocritically, mocked.

You just don't seem to grasp that. It is quite black and white. Only one side can be right, and as I've said, if athiests are right, the religious most definitely are "batshit insane".

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

you are mixing up church and belief here. There are indeed certain aspects that cannot be proven nowadays.

Why do humans have the sense of "me"?

Why do humans have the feeling called "sympathy"

How come humans have a sense of "justice"

How come humans have a sense of creativity, of beauty?

There are many facets about humans that science if far from being able to proof. And the big bang theory is logical indeed, but what was before the big bang? Where does the universe come from.

Someone who is purely an atheist just because religion doesnt match science is heartless to me. And you will see one day that even genetics cant proof certain facts about us humanbeings, the more it advances the more it finds irregularities. Not that I want to say science is on the way to proof itself wrong. But there will always be the x factor that cannot be proven.

[Acro 0]

A thing done in name of atheism or non-religion is the liquidation of 200 000 orthodox priests and monks in former Soviet Union during Stalin's reign. So, all kind of fanatism whether it's atheist, monotheist or polytheist isn't a good thing.

[sanctuary 19]

So, all kind of fanatism whether it's atheist, monotheist or polytheist isn't a good thing.

That are words of truth and wisdom.

May some people hear them and begin to understand.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]'Wahh everyone who disagrees with my crazy beliefs is a radicalist fanatic!'

No but anyone who is so desperate to downgrade religion has to resort to using profane words to describe people who belief has to be , only people who dont know how to describe themselves well practise such things and i find it in abundance among the religious fanatics too often

Quote[/b] ]There are many facets about humans that science if far from being able to proof. And the big bang theory is logical indeed, but what was before the big bang? Where does the universe come from.

Good point ive always wondered what death or love mean to science or people who are hell bent in to translating every aspect of their life in to scientific lab lingo.

Like is death just called , ceasing of electric impulses from the brain ?

Quote[/b] ]But there will always be the x factor that cannot be proven.

Exactly and there being fanatic about saying that there exists no GOD or there exists one is sadistic. You practise what you belief in, and if you dont believe in either you dont have the right to start calling the other delusional or bat shit for that matter. Its irrational but i thought athiests were the only people who knew about rationality ...

[m21man 0]

In defense of the "bat shit" comment:

You could have read the quote underneath it. In this quote, the author stated that dinosaurs were "really" regular lizards grown to enormous sizes. This ignores the fact that we have never found a living example of a midget Tyrannosaurus, the bone structure of an iguana is not adapted to hold up the body of an enormous dinosaur, etc...

Would people have been happier if I'd written "Look at this example of colossal ignorance"?

[Acecombat 0]

As i said if a selected group of people want to be morons then please poke all your fun at them and dont play 'Generalizer' here with us.

[vektorboson 8]

you are mixing up church and belief here. There are indeed certain aspects that cannot be proven nowadays.

That's correct, but in contrary to belief and religion science progresses. Science has always to be critical to itself. Theories have to be disproved and are being disproved, with replacing them with better theories which match the "measured reality" better than the old ones.

Religions instead have to be dogmatic, because they just have to be dogmatic, otherwise people loose their faith. And upside down, they don't have to be dogmatic, because any disproven fact stated by a religion, disproves a religion partially, what makes people loose their faith, again.

This is the major problem of religions. They have to flee to regions, where science is not capable in explaining why some things are, as they are. And science moves this border further and further, leaving less space for religion.

Of course there always will be stuff which can't be explained scientifically. We don't know whether science will be able to explain those things, that are not (yet?) measurable, as your stated "senses".

Quote[/b] ]

Why do humans have the sense of "me"?

Why do humans have the feeling called "sympathy"

How come humans have a sense of "justice"

How come humans have a sense of creativity, of beauty?

There are many facets about humans that science if far from being able to proof. And the big bang theory is logical indeed, but what was before the big bang? Where does the universe come from.

The problem about the "before" the Big Bang is basically already solved in the Realtivitiy Theory. Einstein stated that there is no absolute time, but everything is relative instead. Every matter, every particle has its own time.

"Before" there was no matter, there was no time. The Big Bang "created" matter and thus "created" time. This sounds much like there was a Creator (you can ask, what was before the Creator?), but it is only a logical conclusion, if the Relativity Theory is "correct". We don't know exactly.

And of course it doesn't answer why the universe happened. You have at least two options here: There was a creator, or "if it didn't happened, we weren't able to ask this question". Both are not satisfactory for rationalists.

Quote[/b] ]

And you will see one day that even genetics cant proof certain facts about us humanbeings, the more it advances the more it finds irregularities.

Genetics can't prove the "facts" because the facts are theories, and science has to disprove old theories, to find new better ones. I actually think that finding irregularities is something good, because it shows us, that there is more to discover. We are not at a Dead Point.

Quote[/b] ]

Not that I want to say science is on the way to proof itself wrong. But there will always be the x factor that cannot be proven.

Science has to prove itself wrong, so we get a better science, and the x factor has always to moved further. Life would be terrible and senseless if there wasn't a X Factor  

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Its funny how people try putting down religion vehemently, using science as a reason.

Science really is just a new type of religion - mathematics and physical observations say so, hence it must be so. It is taken as the absolute Right. Just like it was done with any of the major religions in the past millennia or so.

Just as crazy as thinking of the old man with the white beard

So 'll just lean back and enjoy this paradox and watch out for naughty comments

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

you are mixing up church and belief here. There are indeed certain aspects that cannot be proven nowadays.

Why do humans have the sense of "me"?

Why do humans have the feeling called "sympathy"

How come humans have a sense of "justice"

How come humans have a sense of creativity, of beauty?

There are many facets about humans that science if far from being able to proof. And the big bang theory is logical indeed, but what was before the big bang? Where does the universe come from.

Someone who is purely an atheist just because religion doesnt match science is heartless to me. And you will see one day that even genetics cant proof certain facts about us humanbeings, the more it advances the more it finds irregularities. Not that I want to say science is on the way to proof itself wrong. But there will always be the x factor that cannot be proven.

...because we evolved the capacity to understand our own situation, uniquely (probably) amongst all animals since we as a species had selective pressure to evolve larger brains.

Please do some studying before asking questions such as these which can, actually, be proven.

Regardless of what happened before the big bang, the FACT remains that a god had nothing to do with any of it.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Regardless of what happened before the big bang, the FACT remains that a god had nothing to do with any of it.

Please show me the proof

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Its funny how people try putting down religion vehemently, using science as a reason.

Science really is just a new type of religion - mathematics and physical observations say so, hence it must be so. It is taken as the absolute Right. Just like it was done with any of the major religions in the past millennia or so.

Just as crazy as thinking of the old man with the white beard

So 'll just lean back and enjoy this paradox and watch out for naughty comments

Don't talk nonsense.

Science is the complete opposite of religion.

Go to school.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Regardless of what happened before the big bang, the FACT remains that a god had nothing to do with any of it.

Please show me the proof

Please show me any reason to think that a supernatural god like entity exists.

Without that, there is no reason to think that one does.

The ones claiming a ridiculous, impossible idea are the ones who have to prove it, not the ones who do not believe it:

for example, if I claim I have the loch ness monster in my garden, anyone who is not an idiot will not believe me without some sort of proof. It is not up to those who do not believe me to prove I do not.

This is basic.

You should have learned this in school.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Its funny how people try putting down religion vehemently, using science as a reason.

Science really is just a new type of religion - mathematics and physical observations say so, hence it must be so. It is taken as the absolute Right. Just like it was done with any of the major religions in the past millennia or so.

Just as crazy as thinking of the old man with the white beard

So 'll just lean back and enjoy this paradox and watch out for naughty comments

Don't talk nonsense.

Science is the complete opposite of religion.

Go to school.

Learn some manners or your account may be in danger. Your arrogant and patronising tone has been noticed. There is no need for something like this in a civilised discussion. I particulary refer to your remarks about "Go to school". This is not needed. Now to your points.

Show to me how science can be the complete opposite, if the conclusions from science are taken as the ultimate truth, just like other people take their respective holy scriptures as the ultimate truth? Notice that we are talking about the conclusions and basic points here, not about research methods.

Quote[/b] ]Please show me any reason to think that a supernatural god like entity exists.

Without that, there is no reason to think that one does.

It can not be proven that it exists, hence it doesn't exist.

This it terrible science.

*bites off remark about learning stuff in school*

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Please show me any reason to think that a supernatural god like entity exists

Lets discuss this in a nice manner cause it is very interesting and every opinion here has a logic.

That is exactly it. Belief is that you trust in something that you should not trust, because it has never been seen, felt, nor proven. That is why the term "belief" is so appropriate.

Why should I believe in something that doesnt even show itself? It would be so easy for a god to turn all humans into christians...just create a nice catastrophy and give some clear signals from the sky. And everyone would fear god's power. But instead he lets the humans kill the only the diplomat he sent to earth.

That is called freedom.

You have the right to believe or not, if there would be indicators of a god you would no longer be free to chose for yourself. You would not belief, you would know, where is the freedom then to choose?

You can believe or not and your life wont change. Prayers wont change anything, crimes wont change anything. Your life just moves on. But when you belief then you do it even though their is no proof, that is what we nowadays think god wants, confidence and trust! If you would belief and know there is a god, then you would pray because you expect a return. You would see a visit to church like paying for an upcoming bill.

But no, I go to church (rarely) because I belief and dont do it because I have hidden intentions (so I will end up in heaven instead of hell). I dont do to get a profit out of it. I do it to thank someone for all I have. I am sure we will never have a proof of god. You say "because there is no god" and I say "because god will continue giving us the choice to belief or to know that there isnt". Confuses you?  

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]It can not be proven that it exists, hence it doesn't exist.

This it terrible science.

Well, it's better than "It cannot be proven it exists, so it must exist."

Quote[/b] ]Show to me how science can be the complete opposite, if the conclusions from science are taken as the ultimate truth, just like other people take their respective holy scriptures as the ultimate truth?

Science is verifiable, you should be able to do an experiment again and again with (nearly) the same result every time. Also, scientists will change their ideas when if a new experiment comes along and invalidates an old theory. There are no "Science Fundamentalists" who still insist that the Earth is flat and in the center of the Universe. Religious beliefs cannot be proven, there has never been an experiment which verified the existence of a god.

Quote[/b] ]Science really is just a new type of religion

Oh Denoir, where art thou?