SFW religious posters

[ldancer911]

think about it this way. let's say you subscribe to the nazi agenda. you believe your race is superior (that's all you believe in)

let's say that somehow leads you to believe that you can rightfully slaughter anyone outside of your race (does every nazi do this? no, but this thought of yours follows directly from your nazi belief, there's a logical pathway)

another person does not subscribe to this belief, he is a non-nazi. Does that mean he can't have the will to slaughter anyone outside of his race? of course not, but wherever he draws this thought from, it is not due to his non-naziness. because non-naziness is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief.

Ok....I am man enough to know when I have been trolled.

:wave:

[abt5]

Ok....I am man enough to know when I have been trolled.

:wave:

I wasn't trolling. But if that's how you escape an argument sure.

[gosuruss]

So what I think I am hearing abt5 saying is:

If an atheist commits a terrible act...it is 100% that person fault, and atheism has nothing to do with it.

If a religious person commits a terrible act...it is a 100% the religions fault, and if he didn't believe in any religion he would not have done it.

If an atheist commits a terrible act, it has about as much to do with his atheism as it has to do with whether he collects stamps. That is the point.

When a christian burns someone alive for being a non believer, it has plenty to do with them being a christian. It really does. The motivation to burn this person alive is derived from the belief system they subscribe to. What belief system? The Bible. The quran. Do you think these things were not debated at the time by religious scholars?? Do you think these acts were not justified by church leaders?

When a muslim hijacks a plane and blows up the WTC, it has plenty to do with him being a muslim. Defending his faith, glory to allah, shun the unbeliever -- all words of a belief system he subscribes to and he would proudly agree with me if he were here today.

finally, certainly ABT is not saying any terrible atrocity committed by a christian is because of his faith. Gang wars, for example, have very little to do with religion. ABT is claiming that the religious atrocities that are explicitly justified through religion, are very likely to be religiously motivated.

ill post more later.

[spankster]

But impossible for atheists to do horrible acts for atheism reasons.

Well at least I see what you are saying.



I completely disagree with it though.

Does the term "jihad" ring any bells?

Hint: it translates to "holy war"

[gosuruss]

think about it this way. let's say you subscribe to the nazi agenda. you believe your race is superior (that's all you believe in)

let's say that somehow leads you to believe that you can rightfully slaughter anyone outside of your race (does every nazi do this? no, but this thought of yours follows directly from your nazi belief, there's a logical pathway)

another person does not subscribe to this belief, he is a non-nazi. Does that mean he can't have the will to slaughter anyone outside of his race? of course not, but wherever he draws this thought from, it is not due to his non-naziness. because non-naziness is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief.

you are on the right track -- need to tighten up the second "paragraph" and create a stronger pathway IMO

[abt5]

you are on the right track -- need to tighten up the second "paragraph" and create a stronger pathway IMO

feel free to improve upon it. im so heavy headed right now. im gonna go home

[gomer_tree]

think about it this way. let's say you subscribe to the nazi agenda. you believe your race is superior (that's all you believe in)

let's say that somehow leads you to believe that you can rightfully slaughter anyone outside of your race (does every nazi do this? no, but this thought of yours follows directly from your nazi belief, there's a logical pathway)

another person does not subscribe to this belief, he is a non-nazi. Does that mean he can't have the will to slaughter anyone outside of his race? of course not, but wherever he draws this thought from, it is not due to his non-naziness. because non-naziness is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief.

Let's try the converse. Or inverse. Or whatever the hell it is...

I propose that it is entirely possible and probable that otherwise naturally crummy human beings who are religious have NOT committed terrible acts precisely due to religious reasons, whereas similarly crummy human beings who are atheists have committed terrible acts due to the fact that they had no religious/moral/whatever you want to call it framework for not committing those terrible acts.

That is not a universal statement, just as the suggestion that some nutty Christians commit terrible acts in the name of religion whereas atheists don't commit them in the name of atheism.

[gomer_tree]

This whole argument is actually pretty stupid, anyway. All of this has nothing to do with whether or not a particular religion's beliefs are true or false. It's just a recognition of man's tendency to be inhumane to fellow man.

[The Drunken Actuary]

This whole argument is actually pretty stupid, anyway. All of this has nothing to do with whether or not a particular religion's beliefs are true or false. It's just a recognition of man's tendency to be inhumane to fellow man.

:iatp:

[abt5]

Let's try the converse. Or inverse. Or whatever the hell it is...

I propose that it is entirely possible and probable that otherwise naturally crummy human beings who are religious have NOT committed terrible acts precisely due to religious reasons, whereas similarly crummy human beings who are atheists have committed terrible acts due to the fact that they had no religious/moral/whatever you want to call it framework for not committing those terrible acts.

That is not a universal statement, just as the suggestion that some nutty Christians commit terrible acts in the name of religion whereas atheists don't commit them in the name of atheism.

For once, I agree with you.
So we have this:

Possible for christian to do bad things because of being christian: yes

Possible for christian to do bad things because of not being atheist (who would've otherwise not do the bad things had they been atheists): yes

Possible for atheist to do bad things because of being atheist: no

Possible for atheist to do bad things because of not being christian (who would otherwise not do the bad things had they been christians): yes

[abt5]

This whole argument is actually pretty stupid, anyway. All of this has nothing to do with whether or not a particular religion's beliefs are true or false. It's just a recognition of man's tendency to be inhumane to fellow man.

I agree, but it spawned from the ever-emerging argument that as many murders have been commited in the name of atheism as christianity.

[abt5]

But people, let's carry on with the creative posters. I think we're running thin

[yankeetripper]

Possible for atheist to do bad things because of being atheist: no

What about an athiest who attacks someone because of their religious beliefs?

[Hawkeye16]

Eddie C got one of my favorites (YMCA Blasphemy one) and I like these two as well.

http://cookie77.smugmug.com/Humor/stoopid/PacManReligon/414779809_jgjf9-L.jpg
and explosm
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/water-into-whine.png
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/Holy-puns,-Batman!-%28Get-it!-HOLY-puns.-Oh,-me.%29.png

[abt5]

What about an athiest who attacks someone because of their religious beliefs?

does a non-nazi hate a nazi BECAUSE he's non-nazi, or is it because of the inherent issue of being a nazi

[gosuruss]

This whole argument is actually pretty stupid, anyway. All of this has nothing to do with whether or not a particular religion's beliefs are true or false. It's just a recognition of man's tendency to be inhumane to fellow man.

a recognition that stupid ideas (read: ideas based on faith) can increase that tendency.

but seriously, agree. do not like this topic at all.

[Atheist Man]

I propose that it is entirely possible and probable that otherwise naturally crummy human beings who are religious have NOT committed terrible acts precisely due to religious reasons, whereas similarly crummy human beings who are atheists have committed terrible acts due to the fact that they had no religious/moral/whatever you want to call it framework for not committing those terrible acts.
In my experience, religionists do whatever the hell their own heart tells them is the right thing to do, and maybe later they'll find some sort of way to twist the words of the bible to find a way to justify it. See: my soon-to-be-ex-wife.

No, it's far more common that religion hurts people by telling them that there are all sorts of wonderful things that consenting adults can do to each other and to themselves in moderation that don't hurt anybody but that they mustn't do because some people think it makes the Baby Jesus sad.

[Durai]

For once, I agree with you.
So we have this:

Possible for christian to do bad things because of being christian: yes

Possible for christian to do bad things because of not being atheist (who would've otherwise not do the bad things had they been atheists): yes

Possible for atheist to do bad things because of being atheist: no

Possible for atheist to do bad things because of not being christian (who would otherwise not do the bad things had they been christians): yes

+1

[QMO]

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Could be that I'm easily offended. However, the second paragraph would probably have sufficed for an explanation of Catholic history of exploration. The first paragraph was to me, offensive, being a person from a culture who actually does worship the Sun.I'm not gomer_tree, but I'll tell you straight up that I think my religion is better than yours.

Now, I know that there are posters on the AO that have said that that makes me evil. In fact, one has categorically stated that pretty much the only thing they consider evil is a person claiming their own beliefs are more correct than those of that poster.

Fortunately, when pressed, most agree that it's pretty normal to believe that one's own beliefs are more correct than others'.

Perhaps that's not what you're getting at, though.

[abt5]

I'm not gomer_tree, but I'll tell you straight up that I think my religion is better than yours.

Now, I know that there are posters on the AO that have said that that makes me evil. In fact, one has categorically stated that pretty much the only thing they consider evil is a person claiming their own beliefs are more correct than those of that poster.

Fortunately, when pressed, most agree that it's pretty normal to believe that one's own beliefs are more correct than others'.

Perhaps that's not what you're getting at, though.

it's not a competition bro. there's no "better". there's just right and wrong.

[snikelfritz]

But people, let's carry on with the creative posters. I think we're running thin

:iatp: I've run out personally.

Also, I don't think Stalin / Mao were evil because of their athiesm, but, I'll accept that was potentially part of it. Communism isn't a religion, but it's a little tricky to say what it is exactly.

[crabber]

it's not a competition bro. there's no "better". there's just right and wrong.

Oh, good. We can now end this discussion and go back to offending the weak minded with religious cartoons, since nobody's beliefs are 100% right.

[snikelfritz]

The quality is now dropping

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/demotivational-posters-oedipus-man.jpg

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/demotivational-posters-catholicism.jpg

[Noddy]

Actually, verifiable evidence against Greek mythology is all over the place. Atlas isn't holding up the world, there are no gods living on top of Mount Olympus...

Ya, it'd be silly to believe that

[gosuruss]

I'm not gomer_tree, but I'll tell you straight up that I think my religion is better than yours.

Now, I know that there are posters on the AO that have said that that makes me evil. In fact, one has categorically stated that pretty much the only thing they consider evil is a person claiming their own beliefs are more correct than those of that poster.

Fortunately, when pressed, most agree that it's pretty normal to believe that one's own beliefs are more correct than others'.

Perhaps that's not what you're getting at, though.

the practices of your religion? sure, i think you can argue that.

i'd love to hear you explain how your evidence is better.

I think mormonism has great evidence. 10 eye witnesses saw the gold plates. How can you beat that? the best evidence is stories you heard 35 years later.

[Noddy]

Hmm.. this thread went from "All religions are dumb" to "Here's why my religion is better than everyone else's."

I searched teh interwebs for funny Hinduism posters, but I couldn't find any. :-(
The stories of Hindu mythology/scripture are rich for being poked fun at. Hmmm.. a business opportunity?

Nah, there's not much to take issue with Hindus.

Hinduism grants a great degree of freedom of belief and worship. Also, the concept of heresy is absent.

[Noddy]

Doubtful. No one really cares about the Hindus.

lol
(Ninja'd as they say...)

[Noddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Actuary
Which religions is it not laughable to compare Christianity to?

BTW, I started your thread. Why are you still here???


Why are you here?

Is there a religion that is not laughable to compare your xtian sect to?

How about mormanism? ( titter )

[ditkaworshipper]

Thank you for this response.

I am here to inform you that the world was not created in 6 days. That it couldn't have happened in the order it said it was, meaning the stars after life (stars exploding -> carbon -> carbon based life). I am also here to inform you that two humans were not created by the snap of a finger, we evolved. That is a fact. God doesn't answer prayers like he said he would(statistical evidence suggests this strongly, as well as amputees).

There are no clouds in the sky where you go to heaven. Just deep space.


i feel like this is pretty comparable, yeah?
Below is genesis, since you have the order incorrect. I bolded everything in your post that you can't prove.

First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.

Please stop spewing bullshit. The only people who believe genesis literally are fundies, and they are a lost cause. I've said this before, but if you want to effectively argue against religion, you actually have to learn about it. Otherwise, you're just making all of us atheists/agnostics look like asshats.

[Noddy]

I'm talking historically about the transition from those people and cultures who recognized there must be a God of some sort but had no revelation/understanding of His nature. So they worshipped the Sun or Moon or other outlets. It was pretty much the best they could do under the circumstances.

That's rich.

Specific to Christianity, the development of doctrine in the Catholic faith is given by example to the statements of faith and writings that came from various councils and papal statements, as well as the continued formulation of the catechism. The different creeds are direct examples, because they addressed many of the questions of and heresies of the times.

oh, so it's all better now

[abt5]

Below is genesis, since you have the order incorrect. I bolded everything in your post that you can't prove.



Please stop spewing bullshit. The only people who believe genesis literally are fundies, and they are a lost cause. I've said this before, but if you want to effectively argue against religion, you actually have to learn about it. Otherwise, you're just making all of us atheists/agnostics look like asshats.

so you're saying a non-fundie Greek mythology believer has a good stance? The original argument is that Christianity and Greek myths are incomparable, you have yet to demonstrate that they are different. Like others said, the "examples" you attempted to show that discredit Greek myths could just be broader metaphors that completely circumvents your rational onslaughts.

[Noddy]

Below is genesis, since you have the order incorrect. I bolded everything in your post that you can't prove.

Please stop spewing bullshit. The only people who believe genesis literally are fundies, and they are a lost cause. I've said this before, but if you want to effectively argue against religion, you actually have to learn about it. Otherwise, you're just making all of us atheists/agnostics look like asshats.

gossurus does nothing like 'spewing bullshit' (in religious threads anyway). He knows plenty about about religion and certainly more than enough to argue with you about it

He should've stated that 'light' wouldve had to come before the earth.

You're funny though

You seem a dab hand at said bs spewing

[Noddy]

Most Hindus I know actually also believe the mythology is just that - mythology. They dont take the stories literally.

Yes yes move along
No problems with the Hindus

[Noddy]

ahahahahahaha:lolup::rofl::lol::notworth::love:

snicker

cartoonist

[Noddy]

Well, anyone who's not a Muslim is a infidel. Hindus are infidels in india, Christians and jews are infidels in the west.
I group the Christians, Muslims and Jews together all the time. To me, they're the Abrahmic religions. Makes sense to me. so I'm guilty of that "lumping" too.

Hey, while you two are doing your lumping, don't forget about us atheists!
How's about a little solidarity?

Also, when do you find it useful to lump the Jews, xtians and Muslims together?

[Noddy]

You're right. It's both. I was wrong.

Whoa, what little credibility you appeared to have just evaporated

[Noddy]

:clap:
This thread has now been derailed!
:clap:

move along

[gosuruss]

Below is genesis, since you have the order incorrect. I bolded everything in your post that you can't prove.



Please stop spewing bullshit. The only people who believe genesis literally are fundies, and they are a lost cause. I've said this before, but if you want to effectively argue against religion, you actually have to learn about it. Otherwise, you're just making all of us atheists/agnostics look like asshats.

Fundies are acting quite logically under bad assumptions. They actually believe it. If you take jesus rising from the dead and being the son of god as fact, i would literally believe the bible. I just don't understand you can decide your own moral/scientific intuitions are superior to what the creator has left behind for you. It just seems silly to me.

So wait, you are telling me I can't prove that a supernatural invisible being doesn't alter the course of natural law to answer telepathic questions towards him? You are damn right I can't prove to certainty. But I can offer arguments (amputees??? not a single one has regrown a limb. despite praying. that directly contradicts scripture which says god should have atleast answered some of their prayers) that contradict scripture (the very basis for believing in prayer), and I can cite many different studies on prayer which have shown that groups of people praying don't have a noticeable effect. What else would you have me do??

k i got the wrong order but noddy fixed it.

[Noddy]

Oh, I see what you mean. Like sometimes a Westerner might forget whether its Buddhim or Hinduism that have the 8 fold path to enlightment. In the same way, you might forget whether it's Christians or Muslims who hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

what he said

[JohnLocke]

Fortunately, when pressed, most agree that it's pretty normal to believe that one's own beliefs are more correct than others'.


Logically, nothing else makes sense. Either you believe all viewpoints are equally, which very very very few people do, or views must be unequal and most likely there is a view that is "most correct" in your opinion. And why would you believe anything that wasn't the closest to (what you perceive to be) truth?

[Noddy]

Re: Stalin

Fine, I'll get fired for not doing my job, but I'll answer your question. It'll be totally worth it, I'm sure.

Premise: Stalin is an example of a "militant Atheist" with similar qualifications as those which we apply to those that we call "militant Islamists" and "militant Christians".

Your response to this premise:

So,
Fact: Stalin was the leader of Communist USSR, the primary version of Communism-as-practiced which is atheistic at its core.
Fact: Stalin is known to have ordered the mass murder of, and assignment to penal labor camps of, a great number of those who did not toe the party line - Christians and Jews, in particular. 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed, and a much greater number subjected to persecution, during the first decade following the Marxist revolution, instigated by Stalin as the General Secretary of the Party.

Stalin's willingness to eliminate, in addition to religious ideology, competing ideologies that happened to share the basic atheistic view is irrelevant to the label "militant atheist". After all, militant Islamists view moderate Muslims as betrayers and infidels in the same category as non-Muslims, and plenty of militant Christians abide by the view that theirs is the ONLY correct view and that others are luke-warm (a reference to Revelation) and that God will "spit them out" as being false Christians. It is my understanding that this is precisely how both militant Islamists and militant Christians (as rare as the latter is) justify collateral damage.

So yes, Stalin, Mao and many of their respective followers are, based on this thought process, entitled to the title of "militant Atheist", as far as I'm concerned.

You are a vociferous ignoramus*

you should've let your sidestep pass ( better to be thought a fool ... )

(also, you have hereby waived your right to call anyone round here a militant atheist)


And I still have no idea how this sentence was meant to be structured:


*or you're a bot

[QMO]

it's not a competition bro. there's no "better". there's just right and wrong.I think that you're mistaken in suggesting that "better" and "right" are mutually exclusive.

For example, my religion is better than other belief systems because it is right more often.

However, I agree that it (where "it" = "what is right") is not a competition.

[abt5]

I think that you're mistaken in suggesting that "better" and "right" are mutually exclusive.

For example, my religion is better than other belief systems because it is right more often.

However, I agree that it (where "it" = "what is right") is not a competition.

why would you want a belief system that's "right" more often. why not be "right" all the time? subscribe to scientific reasoning!

[Noddy]

wiki quotemine that refers to an atheistic state

same source

Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism

That is an ideology; Non godbotism isn't.

Also from the wiki

"the Soviet law and administrative practice through most of the 1920's extended some tolerance to religion and forbade the arbitrary closing or destruction of some functioning churches",[13] while each successive Soviet constitution granted freedom of belief. As the founder of the Soviet state, Lenin put it:
Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6]

And

Marxism-Leninism has advocated for the suppression, and, ultimately, the disappearance of religious beliefs, considering them to be "unscientific" and "superstitious".

And

Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.

[Noddy]

My faith is my own, and it cannot be "defended" on an online forum. If you want to learn about my faith, I'll be more than happy to tell you why I have it. Let's go out for a beer and chicken wings and chat.

waiiiit, you're the guy whose god put gas in your tank aren't you?

[Noddy]

ETA: Flightless birds! Proof of the falsehood of evolution! All hail Allah!

would be funny if I didn't know you have your doubts about the 'theory' of evolution

[Noddy]

True

False

False

True

False

True

That's not really accurate, it is a rather that believers have an assurance of salvation rather than getting to go to a certain location.

False

Well, there we have it.

[Noddy]

I'm relieved that I'm not the only encumbered with religious dogma...

atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of a god ( or gods )

Your religion corrupts your otherwise presumably 'normal' positions regarding right or wrong. ( 'morals' )

[Noddy]

But impossible for atheists to do horrible acts for atheism reasons.

what are these 'atheism reasons'

[Descalzo]

I suppose there's some class of problems that can be "solved" by prayer. If you're struggling with some moral dilemma, and you can't figure it out, perhaps meditating on the teachings of Christ might point you in the right direction, a small percentage of the time.

But in my experience, few instances of prayer are for the purpose of discernment. Most people pray most of the time to either tell God How Great He Art, or conversely to tell Him How Great They Art Not, or to ask Him do something for someone.

Sooooo you agree that it's not an honest look at the way prayer is supposed to work?

[Descalzo]

why would you want a belief system that's "right" more often. why not be "right" all the time? subscribe to scientific reasoning!

Scientific reasoning isn't right all the time. Unless I misunderstand 'right'.

[abt5]

Scientific reasoning isn't right all the time. Unless I misunderstand 'right'.

http://animediet.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Facepalm-jesus-facepalm-facepalm.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0905/christianity-christianity-demotivational-poster-1242680522.gif

[abt5]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0808/atheism-christianity-god-demotivational-poster-1219205696.png

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/christianity-prayer-jesus-god-stupid-atheist-christian-relig-demotivational-poster-1225160455.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0906/christian-logic-nightvisionphantom-youtube-christian-religio-demotivational-poster-1245179592.jpg

[abt5]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_11aL7120sR0/S9qbp2vgQHI/AAAAAAAAAOY/f1BzSomkCMo/s1600/quote-mining-fundie-quote-mining-fallacy-demotivational-poster-1211866892.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f3/86490d1250675820-atheist-motivational-posters-christianity-demotivational-poster-_notsomotivationalcom.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0806/christian-demotivational-poster-1214892433.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0904/christianity-religion-christianity-atheism-demotivational-poster-1240872513.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motivationals.org/demotivational-posters-2/demotivational-poster-53434.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motivationals.org/demotivational-posters/demotivational-poster-22120.jpg

[abt5]

http://doctore0.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/abortion.jpg

[abt5]

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/demotivational-posters-christianity.jpg

[abt5]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bKApQVv2ln4/TakC9Xj_v7I/AAAAAAAAJGw/4KAi9iqCq3A/s1600/normal_christianity-prayer-jesus-god-stupid-atheist-christian-relig-demotivational-poster-1225214203.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motivationals.org/demotivational-posters-1/demotivational-poster-29259.jpg

[abt5]

http://demotivate.me/mediafiles/400/4162010103910AM_inspirational-posters-superheroes-19.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motivationals.org/demotivational-posters-1/demotivational-poster-39583.jpg

[abt5]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_blBRacH1VWk/SorrDFwDCnI/AAAAAAAAAc0/XZNdBGyBz3o/s1600/ByTheBook63.PNG

[abt5]

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1008/racism-racism-religion-discrimination-muslim-christianity-is-political-poster-1282532584.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.demoties.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ian-21-5.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/irony-religion-christianity-irony-evolution-creationism-stup-demotivational-poster-1250517129.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0806/christians-fail-owned-nsfw-not-safe-for-work-christian-bible-demotivational-poster-1214582907.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0903/options-love-burn-jesus-christ-options-limited-demotivational-poster-1238010713.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1009/so-heres-the-plan-pope-christianity-pope-persectuion-demotivational-poster-1284429751.png

[abt5]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uuEaCUoipUg/SZvBRcc5IFI/AAAAAAAABDU/L5bgJiLMFvg/s400/Atheist+Motivational+Poster+Christian+Education.jp g

[abt5]

http://amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/christian_oppression_pie.png

[Descalzo]

http://animediet.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Facepalm-jesus-facepalm-facepalm.jpg

I don't see the pic. But the link properties suggest it involves a facepalm. Are you saying scientific thought is always correct? Cause it isn't. So you must have been thinking of some other meaning of Right.

[Jasper07734]

Didn't bother with this thread until now. I should have stuck with not bothering. Wow, thread = lie. I should have known better than to expect a "religious posters" thread to be pro-religion.

Although this thread is sane compared to the atheist one. :yikes:

[abt5]

I don't see the pic. But the link properties suggest it involves a facepalm. Are you saying scientific thought is always correct? Cause it isn't. So you must have been thinking of some other meaning of Right.

By right and wrong, I mean it's the only means of answer any question that has a right/wrong (perhaps I chose the wrong word) answer. And I don't mean right/wrong in a moral sense, that is a lost cause, but if you think about it, philosophical thinking is based on scientific thinking anyway (logic certainly isn't a religious thing).
But you're right, I guess a better word is "true". But many people go berserk on that:
"Omg, how do you know science is true, what if we live in a matrix, what if science is an illusion, what if your mom is science..., why do you have faith in science, omg you're religious too see HAHAH"

Even if you are religious, the way you examine the world is still scientific (by definition actually, what other way is there to examine the facts?)

[Anitha Desai]

I'm not gomer_tree, but I'll tell you straight up that I think my religion is better than yours.

Now, I know that there are posters on the AO that have said that that makes me evil. In fact, one has categorically stated that pretty much the only thing they consider evil is a person claiming their own beliefs are more correct than those of that poster.

Fortunately, when pressed, most agree that it's pretty normal to believe that one's own beliefs are more correct than others'.

Perhaps that's not what you're getting at, though.
You're right. That's not what I'm getting at.
Gomer was asking where I found "My religion is better than yours" in his post. I pointed it out. It appeared it was not his intent to imply it. From his response he seems to disagree that he implied it. That's where he and I disgaree.

I have to add.....

I'm not qualified to say if one religion is better than any other. I sure haven't read your scripture, or the Bible or the Quran in depth. I'm not sure you've researched the Vedas or the Upanishads or the Quran in their entirety to be able to say your religion is better than any other. However, I grant that we tend to think the religion we're born into is more correct than any other.

[Anitha Desai]

Hey, while you two are doing your lumping, don't forget about us atheists!

How's about a little solidarity?
Sorry.

Also, when do you find it useful to lump the Jews, xtians and Muslims together?
Is this a serious question? I find it useful to lump them togther because as I understand it, they believe in the same monotheistic shapeless/formless/omnipotent/omniscient/jealous God.
Their interpretation of how to worship Him and how to live their lives are many.

[Anitha Desai]

Whoa, what little credibility you appeared to have just evaporated
:-(

[spankster]

Most Hindus I know actually also believe the mythology is just that - mythology. They dont take the stories literally.

I thought the point of religion was to have "faith", including believing in the mythology. If you don't believe in the stories, what exactly do you believe in?

Not trying to be difficult here, just curious. I am definitely not a religious person so this would perhaps help me see the other side of the coin.

[Anitha Desai]

I thought the point of religion was to have "faith", including believing in the mythology. If you don't believe in the stories, what exactly do you believe in?

Not trying to be difficult here, just curious. I am definitely not a religious person so this would perhaps help me see the other side of the coin.
I believe that God (if such an entity exists) really is shapeless and formless. I believe the stories give us an ability to meditate on a certain form of the supreme being, helping transition from meditating on a form to meditating on nothingness. What I was taught growing up (and this is different in each family) is that they are stories to help us understand how to behave in various situations. How to make the right choice, morally. We call that doing our dharma. The stories also help build loveable manifestations of the universal God that we worship.

This is totally my own interpretation, and you'd probably get a completely different one from another Hindu. But most Hindus I know think the stories are made-up, but the values behind them are to be absorbed and implemented.

[asdfasdf]

Didn't bother with this thread until now. I should have stuck with not bothering. Wow, thread = lie. I should have known better than to expect a "religious posters" thread to be pro-religion.

Although this thread is sane compared to the atheist one. :yikes:

What, you got something against eating tender delicious babies?

[crabber]

I find it useful to lump them togther because as I understand it, they believe in the same monotheistic shapeless/formless/omnipotent/omniscient/jealous God.


In theory, yes. Opinions vary greatly about his personality though.

[Anitha Desai]

In theory, yes. Opinions vary greatly about his personality though.
Sure. I understand they are three different interpretations of the same God. I'm neither the first nor the last person to lump the three religions together, though.

[Jasper07734]

What, you got something against eating tender delicious babies?

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=5355119&postcount=69

[abt5]

Sure. I understand they are three different interpretations of the same God. I'm neither the first nor the last person to lump the three religions together, though.

ure the 23049th person

[asdfasdf]

ure the 23049th person

Is there a monotheistic religion that isn't Abrahamic?

[abt5]

Is there a monotheistic religion that isn't Abrahamic?

monotheism is boring in general. and hinduism is technically monotheistic (so i heard). i mean, if the holy trinity can be said to be monotheistic, then anything can.

[Anitha Desai]

Is there a monotheistic religion that isn't Abrahamic?

Sigh!
Hinduism is at its core, monotheistic..... all forms that are worshipped are manifestations (Krishna, Rama) or creations (sun, earth, fire) of the supreme being.

[The Borg]

Sigh!
Hinduism is at its core, monotheistic..... all forms that are worshipped are manifestations (Krishna, Rama) or creations (sun, earth, fire) of the supreme being.

I'd say its pantheistic more than monotheistic?

[gosuruss]

In theory, yes. Opinions vary greatly about his personality though.

and his personality is being estimated based upon encounters this being has had with people in the 1st and 7th century, right?

I wonder how much of god's personality is how we think he should act.

it's just weird to me watching people god's "personality"? Once you understand that the miracle stories are just myths with no credibility, assessing the creators personality is similar in my opinion to asking what the personality of a mountain is.

[asdfasdf]

Sigh!
Hinduism is at its core, monotheistic..... all forms that are worshipped are manifestations (Krishna, Rama) or creations (sun, earth, fire) of the supreme being.

I, um, wasn't really reading the posts in this thread until quite recently, was trying to just focus on the posters, wasn't trying to offend.

[Anitha Desai]

I'd say its pantheistic more than monotheistic?
I'd say Buddhism is more pantheistic. Hinduism is IMHO, monotheistic.

[Anitha Desai]

I, um, wasn't really reading the posts in this thread until quite recently, was trying to just focus on the posters, wasn't trying to offend.

No worries. :peace:

[Foodie]

Is there a monotheistic religion that isn't Abrahamic?

Sikhism?

[crabber]

Hinduism is IMHO, monotheistic.

Good, that's means we're all praying to the same god, and we can lump Hinduism in with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Is there a monotheistic religion that isn't Abrahamic?I've never really understoody why Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Jesus and God are really presented as two separate entities.

I have no idea what this Holy Ghost character is supposed to be.

[crabber]

I've never really understoody why Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Jesus and God are really presented as two separate entities.

I have no idea what this Holy Ghost character is supposed to be.

I've never really understood why people feel the need to count a being that has no form.

[Jasper07734]

I've never really understoody why Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Jesus and God are really presented as two separate entities.

I have no idea what this Holy Ghost character is supposed to be.

C-

[gosuruss]

I've never really understood why people feel the need to count a being that has no form.

that is what i've been saying for years. you are finally starting to understand me!!!

[The Drunken Actuary]

I've never really understood why people feel the need to count a being that has no form.

So only Jesus should be counted?

[crabber]

that is what i've been saying for years. you are finally starting to understand me!!!

I've also been saying this for years. This is one of the reasons I reject the Old Testament, which makes a pretty big deal out of this distinction.

[asdfasdf]

Sikhism?

I know very little of this one, is it a one God thing?

I've never really understoody why Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Jesus and God are really presented as two separate entities.

I have no idea what this Holy Ghost character is supposed to be.

I don't really follow the distinction either, but, IIRC it was contentious for a really long time, and if you didn't buy into them being all manifestations of the same God (which I think the Nicean Creed established), the other Christians hated you for it.

[crabber]

So only Jesus should be counted?

'scuse me?

[The Drunken Actuary]

C-

What? Jesus and God are not presented as separate 'people'?

[The Drunken Actuary]

'scuse me?

Does God have a form?

[abt5]

'scuse me?

cuz jesus has a form. silly

[crabber]

Does God have a form?

No.

[The Drunken Actuary]

I know very little of this one, is it a one God thing?



I don't really follow the distinction either, but, IIRC it was contentious for a really long time, and if you didn't buy into them being all manifestations of the same God (which I think the Nicean Creed established), the other Christians hated you for it.

Right. They wanted to be one of the new, fancy, monotheistic, one-God religions. But they aren't. So they decided tehy were anyway and crushed dissenters.

And if Jesus is man, aren't Catholics cannibals?

[The Drunken Actuary]

No.

So we should only count Jesus. What aren't you following?

[Anitha Desai]

:spnner:

[Anitha Desai]

Good, that's means we're all praying to the same god, and we can lump Hinduism in with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

I would actually agree. I have told my Christian friends that I could be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time. I could worship the God of Abraham and still not violate core Hindu beliefs. But they say that if I worship Rama or Krishna I am violating a Christian belief and I can't be a Christian. :-(

[ditkaworshipper]

I've never really understoody why Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Jesus and God are really presented as two separate entities.

I have no idea what this Holy Ghost character is supposed to be.

I've never really understood why people feel the need to count a being that has no form.

I'm not sure whether this is a troll job or not, but as this was one of the constructs of Christianity that gave me pause back when I was trying o be a believer, I'll give it a shot. Think of the trinity as a 3 headed hydra. Each head can act independently, but it is a single entity.

In any case, I remember talking with a priest back in the day on the subject, and he gave me an anecdote from his seminary days. One of the questions on an exam was to explain the trinity. At the end, the instructor asked if anyone felt they completely explained the trinity. No one raised their hand, and the guy said, "Don't worry. We could sit and try to describe it until kindom come and still not have a full answer." :tfh: meter goes off immediately for me :(

[The Drunken Actuary]

I'm not sure whether this is a troll job or not, but as this was one of the constructs of Christianity that gave me pause back when I was trying o be a believer, I'll give it a shot. Think of the trinity as a 3 headed hydra. Each head can act independently, but it is a single entity.In any case, I remember talking with a priest back in the day on the subject, and he gave me an anecdote from his seminary days. One of the questions on an exam was to explain the trinity. At the end, the instructor asked if anyone felt they completely explained the trinity. No one raised their hand, and the guy said, "Don't worry. We could sit and try to describe it until kindom come and still not have a full answer." :tfh: meter goes off immediately for me :(Single entities, by definition, cannot have three parts acting independently.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Good, that's means we're all praying to the same god, and we can lump Hinduism in with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

Meh. I don't even think all Christians are worshipping the same god.

[crabber]

Single entities, by definition, cannot have three parts acting independently.

Independently?

[abt5]

jesus clearly did not think he and God are the same entity.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Independently?

Is this reverse aplpha day? Is.

[The Drunken Actuary]

jesus clearly did not think he and God are the same entity.

That seems clear to me.

[Entropy]

I'll tell you straight up that I think my religion is better than yours.

I always thought that modesty was your best trait.

Had to add this one to the sig.

For example, my religion is better than other belief systems because it is right more often.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How can you possibly even measure something like this?

[asdfasdf]

I would actually agree. I have told my Christian friends that I could be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time. I could worship the God of Abraham and still not violate core Hindu beliefs. But they say that if I worship Rama or Krishna I am violating a Christian belief and I can't be a Christian. :-(

Something in the OT about hatred for other Gods, and smiting, always with the smiting.

Meh. I don't even think all Christians are worshipping the same god.

Catholics are the most extremem however, what with the Virgin Mary and all those saints.

[crabber]

So we should only count Jesus. What aren't you following?

Don't feel bad, the captain of the Titanic also struggled with this concept. He figured "what are the odds there's a big piece of ice floating beneath that little one?"

[abt5]

Don't feel bad, the captain of the Titanic also struggled with this concept. He figured "what are the odds there's a big piece of ice floating beneath that little one?"

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wtf-4-3-09-10.jpg?w=500&h=751

in other words, wtf?

[The Drunken Actuary]

Don't feel bad, the captain of the Titanic also struggled with this concept. He figured "what are the odds there's a big piece of ice floating beneath that little one?"

So, you really aren't following this thread at all, are you?

[crabber]

Clearly my analogy wasn't nearly as powerful as I thought it would be.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Clearly my analogy wasn't nearly as powerful as I thought it would be.

I just don't see how it relates to the conversation we are having. But whatever.

[spankster]

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/wtf-4-3-09-10.jpg?w=500&h=751

in other words, wtf?

Mind = blown

[The Drunken Actuary]

I threw up a little.

[asdfasdf]

Don't feel bad, the captain of the Titanic also struggled with this concept. He figured "what are the odds there's a big piece of ice floating beneath that little one?"

God is above titanic analogies, and logical explantions, you have to just have faith.

[asdfasdf]

I threw up a little.

A closed it immediately because it seems a tad NSFW.

[The Drunken Actuary]

A closed it immediately because it seems a tad NSFW.

Except, oddly, I'm not sure it is.

[crabber]

I just don't see how it relates to the conversation we are having. But whatever.

OK, an iceberg is a big giant piece of ice floating in the water. However, when you're sailing on a ship, you can only see a small piece of it. Under the water, there's a lot more that you can't see, but it's all one piece. So you see, saying that Jesus and God are two different entities is like saying that the tip of the iceberg and the part under the water are two different pieces of ice.

So I think it's silly to try to count something we do not have the ability to perceive.

Stupid religious threads. I'm going to go get some work done now.

[The Drunken Actuary]

OK, an iceberg is a big giant piece of ice floating in the water. However, when you're sailing on a ship, you can only see a small piece of it. Under the water, there's a lot more that you can't see, but it's all one piece. So you see, saying that Jesus and God are two different entities is like saying that the tip of the iceberg and the part under the water are two different pieces of ice.

So I think it's silly to try to count something we do not have the ability to perceive.

Stupid religious threads. I'm going to go get some work done now.

So the real god is not God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost, but the guy underneath the water controlling them all. Got it.

[abt5]

OK, an iceberg is a big giant piece of ice floating in the water. However, when you're sailing on a ship, you can only see a small piece of it. Under the water, there's a lot more that you can't see, but it's all one piece. So you see, saying that Jesus and God are two different entities is like saying that the tip of the iceberg and the part under the water are two different pieces of ice.

So I think it's silly to try to count something we do not have the ability to perceive.

Stupid religious threads. I'm going to go get some work done now.

that is a horrible analogy.
Jesus was an actual person (if you believe he ever existed), he referred to god as a third person. unless he is completely oblivious about the fact that he is actually god himself, I don't see how they can be the same entity.

[abt5]

So the real god is not God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost, but the guy underneath the water controlling them all. Got it.

Poseidon ftw

[The Drunken Actuary]

that is a horrible analogy.
Jesus was an actual person (if you believe he ever existed), he referred to god as a third person. unless he is completely oblivious about the fact that he is actually god himself, I don't see how they can be the same entity.

That part was just a metaphor.

[The Drunken Actuary]

The other parts are real though.

[crabber]

that is a horrible analogy.
Jesus was an actual person (if you believe he ever existed), he referred to god as a third person. unless he is completely oblivious about the fact that he is actually god himself, I don't see how they can be the same entity.

The only point I'm trying to make is that it is ridiculous to try to count god, and my analogy does it well. I'm not defending Jesus or Christianity or a specific religion, just saying that I find disagreements about how many gods exist to be a complete waste of time, and an ineffective method of criticizing (a) religion.

[Gentle Giant]

would be funny if I didn't know you have your doubts about the 'theory' of evolution
You don't know that, as I've never said that. You're either confusing me with another poster or weren't paying attention to whatever I posted that you interpreted that way.

[asdfasdf]

So the real god is not God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost, but the guy underneath the water controlling them all. Got it.

Turtles, all the way down.

[The Drunken Actuary]

You don't know that, as I've never said that. You're either confusing me with another poster or weren't paying attention to whatever I posted that you interpreted that way.

Or he's inferring it from other things you have said.

[The Borg]

jesus clearly did not think he and God are the same entity.
False

[abt5]

False

I'm convinced

[gosuruss]

so funny human beings claiming to be god and people actually believe them. it's just unreal.

[The Borg]

Good, that's means we're all praying to the same god, and we can lump Hinduism in with Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
False

[abt5]

False

this troll bot is not very creative

[The Drunken Actuary]

this troll bot is not very creative
Your original post was better.

[Noddy]

You don't know that, as I've never said that. You're either confusing me with another poster or weren't paying attention to whatever I posted that you interpreted that way.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=164348&page=52

Your pastor is an ignoramus with regards to evolution but that doesn't stop him commenting on it and you presumably give him unwarrented credibility.

Your SO is a big Ken Ham fan. I'd wager that she is a YEC.

I'll eat my hat if it turns out that you hold evolution to be the fact that it is.

[The Drunken Actuary]

What is that link supposed to be?

[Noddy]

What is that link supposed to be?

it was supposed to be a link to a page with a post in support of my assumptions

it's around post# 2035

[abt5]

More pics plz, i uploaded a ton last night but I did it at home so dunno if they work at work.

[The Borg]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=164348&page=52

Your pastor is an ignoramus with regards to evolution but that doesn't stop him commenting on it and you presumably give him unwarrented credibility.

Your SO is a big Ken Ham fan. I'd wager that she is a YEC.

I'll eat my hat if it turns out that you hold evolution to be the fact that it is.

GG is a TE.

[Anitha Desai]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=164348&page=52

Your pastor is an ignoramus with regards to evolution but that doesn't stop him commenting on it and you presumably give him unwarrented credibility.

Your SO is a big Ken Ham fan. I'd wager that she is a YEC.

I'll eat my hat if it turns out that you hold evolution to be the fact that it is.
I looked at GG's post in that thread, and I didn't come to the same conclusions.

[Noddy]

I looked at GG's post in that thread, and I didn't come to the same conclusions.

I'll eat my hat if it turns out that he holds evolution to be the fact that it is.

[QMO]

why would you want a belief system that's "right" more often. why not be "right" all the time? subscribe to scientific reasoning!A) I do use and appreciate scientific reasoning.
B) In spite of the fact that for decades nearly every educated person in the world believed that the brontosaurus once existed, in spite of the fact that there never had been any scientific evidence for the animal (as distinct from other large prehistoric vegetarian lizards) at all. For all I know, people on the AO still think that there was once a brontosaurus.

[The Drunken Actuary]

A) I do use and appreciate scientific reasoning.
B) In spite of the fact that for decades nearly every educated person in the world believed that the brontosaurus once existed, in spite of the fact that there never had been any scientific evidence for the animal (as distinct from other large prehistoric vegetarian lizards) at all. For all I know, people on the AO still think that there was once a brontosaurus.
So what number on your handout is the Brontosaurus issue?

[Gentle Giant]

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=164348&page=52

Your pastor is an ignoramus with regards to evolution but that doesn't stop him commenting on it and you presumably give him unwarrented credibility.
False. First of all, here (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=4385406&postcount=2054) is a more direct link to the post to which I presume you linked.

Secondly, in response to your last point (giving my pastor "unwarranted credibility"), while I do agree with my pastor on some points (as posted here (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=4384183&postcount=2030)), I most certainly do not agree with everything he said, as addressed here (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=4578931&postcount=136), in direct response to another of your oh-so-clever barbs. I do concede, however, that where I said, "I'm sure I was quite explicit that I disagreed with him on precisely where he drew the line," that was, in fact, the only time I can find that I had said so. I may have said so earlier, but couldn't find the post.
Your SO is a big Ken Ham fan. I'd wager that she is a YEC.
Incorrect. One of my wife's friends is a big Ken Ham fan. Not my wife. Here (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=4382605&postcount=2027) is the post that you misread. She is a creationist, but doesn't really care one way or another about whether it's YEC or OEC.
I'll eat my hat if it turns out that you hold evolution to be the fact that it is.
Here (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=5422219&postcount=189) is a recent post where I support - perhaps not explicitly, but consider it so - evolution over literal Creation.

Milk helps it go down better. Please post the event to YouTube.

P.S.: Ultimately, however, I'm a fool - not for my beliefs, but for engaging you once again (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=4385358&postcount=2049).

[Gentle Giant]

A) I do use and appreciate scientific reasoning.
B) In spite of the fact that for decades nearly every educated person in the world believed that the brontosaurus once existed, in spite of the fact that there never had been any scientific evidence for the animal (as distinct from other large prehistoric vegetarian lizards) at all. For all I know, people on the AO still think that there was once a brontosaurus.
I just thought they renamed it Apatosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus).

[Gentle Giant]

GG is a TE.
Yes, I am, and I have posted so on (at least) three separate occasions:
One (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=5333405&postcount=106),
two (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=5333405&postcount=106),
three (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=4347522&postcount=171).
<crrrunch!>

Three.
(For those who are too young - or too old - to remember, that's a reference to the old tootsie roll pop commercial)

[The Drunken Actuary]

it was supposed to be a link to a page with a post in support of my assumptions

Well, it isn't.
it's around post# 2035

You linked to post #511.

[The Drunken Actuary]

I just thought they renamed it Apatosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus).

There was already an Apatpsarus. Some overzealous dinosaur fossil hunter didn't do (chose not to do?) his due diligence and stuck another dino's head on an apatosarous and called it a new species, brontosaurus. The mistake was pretty early caught and corrected yet somehow the name lived on for a long time.

QMO has a list of Times Science Was Wrong and this is somewhere on the list so he busts it out when he gets into these discussions. It's a handout from the 'The Bible>Science Committee'.

[Anitha Desai]

Well, it isn't.

You linked to post #511.
yeah, I actually took the time to go to that post, and read a few more after that one to get the true picture.
Noddy, honestly, i think your dedication to the scientific method is admirable, but you need to be less condescending of posters here. Most posters are intelligent and well-read, and keeping the conversation respectful is a better way of getting to those on the fence, IMHO.

[Gentle Giant]

yeah, I actually took the time to go to that post, and read a few more after that one to get the true picture.
Noddy, honestly, i think your dedication to the scientific method is admirable, but you need to be less condescending of posters here. Most posters are intelligent and well-read, and keeping the conversation respectful is a better way of getting to those on the fence, IMHO.
I doubt you'll be able to convince him of this any more than others have on previous attempts. He just enjoys it too much. Thanks in great part to my willingness to respond, unfortunately. :oops:

[Brock]

There was already an Apatpsarus. Some overzealous dinosaur fossil hunter didn't do (chose not to do?) his due diligence and stuck another dino's head on an apatosarous and called it a new species, brontosaurus. The mistake was pretty early caught and corrected yet somehow the name lived on for a long time.

QMO has a list of Times Science Was Wrong and this is somewhere on the list so he busts it out when he gets into these discussions. It's a handout from the 'The Bible>Science Committee'.

It's funny how when science is wrong it is science that does the correction.

Funny.

[gomer_tree]

yeah, I actually took the time to go to that post, and read a few more after that one to get the true picture.
Noddy, honestly, i think your dedication to the scientific method is admirable, but you need to be less condescending of posters here. Most posters are intelligent and well-read, and keeping the conversation respectful is a better way of getting to those on the fence, IMHO.

You're an ignoramus Gentle-Giant-loving religionist of a different stripe with no credibility. I know everything.

[gomer_tree]

I doubt you'll be able to convince him of this any more than others have on previous attempts. He just enjoys it too much. Thanks in great part to my willingness to respond, unfortunately. :oops:

It really didn't take me long to realize that I can have a more rational discussion with - well, pretty much anyone - than Noddy.

I think you're just a glutton for punishment.

[Mel-o-rama]

yeah, I actually took the time to go to that post, and read a few more after that one to get the true picture.
Noddy, honestly, i think your dedication to the scientific method is admirable, but you need to be less condescending of posters here. Most posters are intelligent and well-read, and keeping the conversation respectful is a better way of getting to those on the fence, IMHO.

Agree. The gist of most of the cartoons on this thread is this:

#1) It takes a certain level of intelligence to accept religion.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize religion is bunk and doesn't make sense.
#3) Therefore atheists are better and smarter.

But then again, you have this:

#1) It takes a certain level to understand logic and the scientific method.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize that it's been proven that science and logic are limited (think Incompleteness Theorem).
#3) Therefore atheists are missing the point and religionists are better and smarter.

And round and round the better-than-thou wheel goes.

Me: I just like to argue, but alas (good for you guys), I seldom have any more time to do so. It's fun to read, though. And arguments are much more enjoyable when one doesn't resort to personal attacks. Arguments should be for discussing ideas; not deciding who the idiots and trolls are.

[gomer_tree]

And arguments are much more enjoyable when one doesn't resort to personal attacks.

Spoken like a true moran.

[gosuruss]

Agree. The gist of most of the cartoons on this thread is this:

#1) It takes a certain level of intelligence to accept religion.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize religion is bunk and doesn't make sense.
#3) Therefore atheists are better and smarter.

But then again, you have this:

#1) It takes a certain level to understand logic and the scientific method.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize that it's been proven that science and logic are limited (think Incompleteness Theorem).
#3) Therefore atheists are missing the point and religionists are better and smarter.

And round and round the better-than-thou wheel goes.

Me: I just like to argue, but alas (good for you guys), I seldom have any more time to do so. It's fun to read, though. And arguments are much more enjoyable when one doesn't resort to personal attacks. Arguments should be for discussing ideas; not deciding who the idiots and trolls are.

here's what it is..

it's like.. you (maybe you don't, but some of you do) believe.. a human being.. is the creator of the universe (in his other form)... because he said so two thousand years ago.. and he preached some influential things and gained a following... and he died on a cross... and a couple people claimed to see him as a ghost.. and his body was not in the tomb.. and people wrote about it 35 years later... really???? Oh, I forgot. And you have to accept this person as your creator to go to an eternal of paradise. And guess what? If you don't, you go to hell for eternity.

It's just really hard for me to understand how educated and intelligent people can believe this. I really want to hear why. I feel like you have maybe three options:

1) the things jesus said were so transcendent that only the creator of the universe could have said them

2) the amount written about jesus is so much it is just unlikely that this much could have been written if he wasn't the creator of the universe (and therefore capable of altering the natural world to perform miracles) -- one really has to wonder how a faith healer in 2011 would do in the first century. He could do some impressive stuff.

3) this is my faith, and you can't disprove it.

[abt5]

Agree. The gist of most of the cartoons on this thread is this:

#1) It takes a certain level of intelligence to accept religion.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize religion is bunk and doesn't make sense.
#3) Therefore atheists are better and smarter.

But then again, you have this:

#1) It takes a certain level to understand logic and the scientific method.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize that it's been proven that science and logic are limited (think Incompleteness Theorem).
#3) Therefore atheists are missing the point and religionists are better and smarter.
And round and round the better-than-thou wheel goes.

Me: I just like to argue, but alas (good for you guys), I seldom have any more time to do so. It's fun to read, though. And arguments are much more enjoyable when one doesn't resort to personal attacks. Arguments should be for discussing ideas; not deciding who the idiots and trolls are.

in other words, we can't be 100% certain about everything, therefore theism has as much credit as scientific reasoning.

[gosuruss]

in other words, we can't be 100% certain about everything, therefore theism has as much credit as scientific reasoning.

That's basically how it goes. :toth: the jump from 2 to 3 is just mindblowing lol

[Brock]

You are all missing the point.

Nude Scarlett Johansson pics on the internet.

Nude.

Scarlett Johansson.

On the internet.

Instant world peace.

[abt5]

You are all missing the point.

Nude Scarlett Johansson pics on the internet.

Nude.

Scarlett Johansson.

On the internet.

Instant world peace.

i always thought she was an uglier version of jessica alba. until jessica alba got ugly. so now they're twins.

[Brock]

i always thought she was an uglier version of jessica alba. until jessica alba got ugly. so now they're twins.

You don't like strawberries. You have bad taste. You smell funny.

Scarlett on the other hand is amazing, and I bet she loves strawberries.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c70qqUtpFTY/TZhuXjC4akI/AAAAAAAADS4/hjF32cec3_c/s1600/scarlett-johansson-celebridades-fotos.jpg

[abt5]

You don't like strawberries. You have bad taste. You smell funny.

stfu little girl

[Brock]

stfu little girl

I'm sure you hear that a lot.

[abt5]

I'm sure you hear that a lot.

i said it last night. when i was with your mom

[yankeetripper]

QMO has a list of Times Science Was Wrong and this is somewhere on the list so he busts it out when he gets into these discussions. It's a handout from the 'The Bible>Science Committee'.
That's probably a long list considering that science is often referred to as 90% failure.

It's a good thing science isn't above rethinking its position on most topics.

[abt5]

and guess who are the ones to point out existing scientific theories are wrong, certainly not the theists

[Brock]

i said it last night. when i was with your mom

You like old fat women.

That explains a lot.

[abt5]

You like old fat women.

That explains a lot.

well, you're the outcome. be appreciative

[ditkaworshipper]

here's what it is..

it's like.. you (maybe you don't, but some of you do) believe.. a human being.. is the creator of the universe (in his other form)... because he said so two thousand years ago.. and he preached some influential things and gained a following... and he died on a cross... and a couple people claimed to see him as a ghost.. and his body was not in the tomb.. and people wrote about it 35 years later... really???? Oh, I forgot. And you have to accept this person as your creator to go to an eternal of paradise. And guess what? If you don't, you go to hell for eternity.

It's just really hard for me to understand how educated and intelligent people can believe this. I really want to hear why. I feel like you have maybe three options:

1) the things jesus said were so transcendent that only the creator of the universe could have said them

2) the amount written about jesus is so much it is just unlikely that this much could have been written if he wasn't the creator of the universe (and therefore capable of altering the natural world to perform miracles) -- one really has to wonder how a faith healer in 2011 would do in the first century. He could do some impressive stuff.

3) this is my faith, and you can't disprove it.
3) you can't get around for most theistic arguments. However, I'll speak to 1) and 2), since they are the main reason most Christians stick around imo. Although I'm agnostic, I still see a lot of value in Jesus' messages (the Buddha as well as other religious figures are also great) for morality. The deeper I dug into the bible, the more he seemed like a hippie to me, and in near complete contrast with the modern church. Stories like the good Samaritan, messages such as, "let the one of you who has not sinned cast the first stone"...I mean, he was truly a kind and loving figure. The details you highlighted about Christianity are the details that I struggled with when I was Catholic. However, underneath that crap, there is a very strong message of love and charity.

Oh, and the divine interpretation of Christ? That developed over time, and it was a debated issue in the early days of the church.

[Brock]

well, you're the outcome. be appreciative

You're not that old, or that good looking, or that smart, or that classy, or that talented, or that creative...

[Mel-o-rama]

and guess who are the ones to point out existing scientific theories are wrong, certainly not the theists

Silly statement. Galileo was a theist, and he proved existing scientific theories wrong.

[abt5]

Silly statement. Galileo was a theist, and he proved existing scientific theories wrong.

with theism, or with science? was it the theist in him that proved it wrong, or was it the scientist?

[ditkaworshipper]

and guess who are the ones to point out existing scientific theories are wrong, certainly not the theists

Maybe not, but they are responsible for most developments in beer, wine, whiskey and the founding of genetics.

[Brock]

Silly statement. Galileo was a theist, and he proved existing scientific theories wrong.

Until the church told him to stfu or gtfo because the scientific theories he was disproving were couched in the dogma of the church.

[Brock]

Maybe not, but they are responsible for most developments in beer, wine, whiskey and the founding of genetics.

and the big bang.

[abt5]

Maybe not, but they are responsible for most developments in beer, wine, whiskey and the founding of genetics.

via scientific reasoning, not biblical revelations

[spankster]

here's what it is..

it's like.. you (maybe you don't, but some of you do) believe.. a human being.. is the creator of the universe (in his other form)... because he said so two thousand years ago.. and he preached some influential things and gained a following... and he died on a cross... and a couple people claimed to see him as a ghost.. and his body was not in the tomb.. and people wrote about it 35 years later... really???? Oh, I forgot. And you have to accept this person as your creator to go to an eternal of paradise. And guess what? If you don't, you go to hell for eternity.

It's just really hard for me to understand how educated and intelligent people can believe this. I really want to hear why. I feel like you have maybe three options:

1) the things jesus said were so transcendent that only the creator of the universe could have said them

2) the amount written about jesus is so much it is just unlikely that this much could have been written if he wasn't the creator of the universe (and therefore capable of altering the natural world to perform miracles) -- one really has to wonder how a faith healer in 2011 would do in the first century. He could do some impressive stuff.

3) this is my faith, and you can't disprove it.

This post just opened up Pandora's box. BAD BAD BAD.

[Mel-o-rama]

It's just really hard for me to understand how educated and intelligent people can believe this. I really want to hear why.

I guess that's my point. When some people can't understand this, why do they naturally assume that theists are idiots?

Fact: I am educated.
Fact: I am studied in logic.
Fact: I am intelligent.
Fact: I believe in <this>; where <this> is some belief system that relies on axioms that cannot be proven.

Therefore: Educated and intelligent people can believe <this>.

If you really want to hear why we believe this @#%!, then the first step is to realize that some theists are intelligent. Then once you're on the same footing, you'll be in more of a position to understand.

[SamTheEagle]

22607

[Mel-o-rama]

with theism, or with science? was it the theist in him that proved it wrong, or was it the scientist?

I call "Deflection." You said: theists are not the ones proving existing scientific methods are wrong. And I provided a counterexample.

I understand what you're saying, though. You're not going to prove anything with the "religious" method. Religion isn't meant to prove things right or wrong. Rather, you're going to use the "scientific" method, because that's what it was created for.

What I'm saying is that the group of people doing science is not a mutually exclusive group from the people who believe in religion. Anyone can do science. Anyone can believe in religion and still use the scientific method. It's not like you can be "for religion" or "for science" and not be for both.

Atheists do not hold a monopoly on science.

[gosuruss]

I guess that's my point. When some people can't understand this, why do they naturally assume that theists are idiots?

Fact: I am educated.
Fact: I am studied in logic.
Fact: I am intelligent.
Fact: I believe in ; where is some belief system that relies on axioms that cannot be proven.

Therefore: Educated and intelligent people can believe .

If you really want to hear why we believe this @#%!, then the first step is to realize that some theists are intelligent. Then once you're on the same footing, you'll be in more of a position to understand.

Did I not just state in the post that I thought many of you were intelligent and educated??

Ps: I look forward to your axiom argument and you saying your axiom is Jesus was the son of god. Cuz that's what your axiom needs to be, lol.

[abt5]

I call "Deflection." You said: theists are not the ones proving existing scientific methods are wrong. And I provided a counterexample.

I understand what you're saying, though. You're not going to prove anything with the "religious" method. Religion isn't meant to prove things right or wrong. Rather, you're going to use the "scientific" method, because that's what it was created for.

What I'm saying is that the group of people doing science is not a mutually exclusive group from the people who believe in religion. Anyone can do science. Anyone can believe in religion and still use the scientific method. It's not like you can be "for religion" or "for science" and not be for both.

Atheists do not hold a monopoly on science.

I'm just targeting the people who use the argument

1. science is not everything
2. Therefore, I can believe anything I want.
3. God exists.

[Mel-o-rama]

Did I not just state in the post that I thought many of you were intelligent and educated??

Yes, you "said" that, but you also said:

it's like.. you (maybe you don't, but some of you do) believe.. a human being.. is the creator of the universe (in his other form)... because he said so two thousand years ago.. and he preached some influential things and gained a following... and he died on a cross... and a couple people claimed to see him as a ghost.. and his body was not in the tomb.. and people wrote about it 35 years later... really???? Oh, I forgot. And you have to accept this person as your creator to go to an eternal of paradise. And guess what? If you don't, you go to hell for eternity.

And put that way, it doesn't really sound like you "think" we're intelligent. :)

BTW, I don't believe 100% of what you wrote there. In particular, the last couple of sentences. Not all religions believe that.

[Mel-o-rama]

I'm just targeting the people who use the argument

1. science is not everything
2. Therefore, I can believe anything I want.
3. God exists.

I agree. I think in actuality, it's more like this:

1. science is not everything.
2. people are going to talk.
3. Viola! Religion. Morals. Traditions. Etc.

You can't stop #2, so there's always going to be #3.

[QMO]

So what number on your handout is the Brontosaurus issue?What?

ETA: Never mind, see below.

[QMO]

...QMO has a list of Times Science Was Wrong...Unless you count the vague list in my head, I don't.

I'm not amazed that some people think that science is never wrong.

But I do think it's amusing when people claim that science is never wrong in the same breath/post that they gush about how wonderful the scientific method is.

[Sentinel]

http://atheistpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/230610.jpg

yes.

[QMO]

I just thought they renamed it Apatosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatosaurus).Not quite how I would put it.

In the late 1800s, someone found an apatosaurus. Shortly thereafter, another apatosaurus was found, but the head of a different dinosaur was attached, and the result was mistakenly believed to be a different species and called brontosaurus. Within a couple of years, but still before 1900, it was known to the real experts that the "brontosaurus" (as different from the apatosaurus) had never existed.

And yet, for a decades it has been one of the best known dinosaurs, to the point that I would not at all be surprised if some AO posters thought my reference to the non-existence of the thing was based on something other than the history of paleontology.

In addition to the Wikipedia article you referenced, see: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/371/is-it-true-the-brontosaurus-never-really-existed .

[TheGillotine]

yes.

Why?

[abt5]

yes.

take an astronomy class

[Descalzo]

By right and wrong, I mean it's the only means of answer any question that has a right/wrong (perhaps I chose the wrong word) answer. And I don't mean right/wrong in a moral sense, that is a lost cause, but if you think about it, philosophical thinking is based on scientific thinking anyway (logic certainly isn't a religious thing).
But you're right, I guess a better word is "true". But many people go berserk on that:
"Omg, how do you know science is true, what if we live in a matrix, what if science is an illusion, what if your mom is science..., why do you have faith in science, omg you're religious too see HAHAH"

Even if you are religious, the way you examine the world is still scientific (by definition actually, what other way is there to examine the facts?)

Well, QMO used to have in his sig a quote by Gary Skouson: "At least half of what we know about physics is wrong. And we don't know which half." Or something like that. That's what I was getting at.

Of course, that doesn't mean science is Wrong.

[Sentinel]

Why?

Obviously Creator of all magnitude of existence can have everlasting compassion for humanity.

God is great!

[TheGillotine]

Obviously Creator of all magnitude of existence can have everlasting compassion for humanity.

God is great!

I suppose that's true, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that a powerful magical spirit was manipulating events on Earth out of compassion.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Unless you count the vague list in my head, I don't.

I'm not amazed that some people think that science is never wrong.

But I do think it's amusing when people claim that science is never wrong in the same breath/post that they gush about how wonderful the scientific method is.

Meh. Scientific theories get revised and corrected as more information is discovered and better theories are developed and mistakes are found or whatever. I don't too many people that think 'science' is never wrong.

[soyleche]

I don't too many people that think 'science' is never wrong.
abt5 seemed to in the post that started this tangent...
why would you want a belief system that's "right" more often. why not be "right" all the time? subscribe to scientific reasoning!

[Hugh Jass]

3) you can't get around for most theistic arguments. However, I'll speak to 1) and 2), since they are the main reason most Christians stick around imo. Although I'm agnostic, I still see a lot of value in Jesus' messages (the Buddha as well as other religious figures are also great) for morality. The deeper I dug into the bible, the more he seemed like a hippie to me, and in near complete contrast with the modern church. Stories like the good Samaritan, messages such as, "let the one of you who has not sinned cast the first stone"...I mean, he was truly a kind and loving figure. The details you highlighted about Christianity are the details that I struggled with when I was Catholic. However, underneath that crap, there is a very strong message of love and charity.

Oh, and the divine interpretation of Christ? That developed over time, and it was a debated issue in the early days of the church.


Plus, Jesus said for you to sell all your possessions in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. How many so-called "Christians" on here are truly willing (because of their oh-so-powerful faith) to abide by these instructions spoken by their Lord and Master?

I predict there will now be many excuses as to why they are exempt from this.

[Hugh Jass]

Agree. The gist of most of the cartoons on this thread is this:

#1) It takes a certain level of intelligence to accept religion.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize religion is bunk and doesn't make sense.
#3) Therefore atheists are better and smarter.

But then again, you have this:

#1) It takes a certain level to understand logic and the scientific method.
#2) It takes a higher level of intelligence to realize that it's been proven that science and logic are limited (think Incompleteness Theorem).
#3) Therefore atheists are missing the point and religionists are better and smarter.

And round and round the better-than-thou wheel goes.

Me: I just like to argue, but alas (good for you guys), I seldom have any more time to do so. It's fun to read, though. And arguments are much more enjoyable when one doesn't resort to personal attacks. Arguments should be for discussing ideas; not deciding who the idiots and trolls are.


No one on the atheist side ever said #1 in the top part. Quite the opposite- believing in god demonstrates a lack of intelligence or perhaps a lack of will or personal responsibility. It's a sign of weakness.

[Hugh Jass]

There. That should get her going.

[Hugh Jass]

yes.

yeah, that poster sucked. It had no real "oomphf". The argument contained in it totally sucked.

Pretty weeny.

[abt5]

abt5 seemed to in the post that started this tangent...

scientific reasoning != science

[crabber]

scientific reasoning != science

Right, scientific reasoning is what the atheists are doing in this thread.

[abt5]

Right, scientific reasoning is what the atheists are doing in this thread.

nice change of subject

[crabber]

nice change of subject

http://static0.channels.com/thumbnails/assets/myspace-com/feeds/80-2128/165043/episodes/14608712_The-Daily-Show-with-Jon-Stewart-Video-Channel-You-re-Welcome--Hacker-Threat--jpg

[ditkaworshipper]

Plus, Jesus said for you to sell all your possessions in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. How many so-called "Christians" on here are truly willing (because of their oh-so-powerful faith) to abide by these instructions spoken by their Lord and Master?

I predict there will now be many excuses as to why they are exempt from this.

Ah, that passage. I remember a homily on this exact topic. Nowhere does it say for the young man to give everything to the poor. A technicality, but an important one. At the time, if a young man was wealthy, he was generally a trader, which means he would have goods to sell. A second interpretation of the same words could mean keep selling, but give away more money to the poor, and in this way you are following Jesus. Basically, continue your work, but give back a little more to the community.

Not that I think most Christians even follow this watered down version, but I wanted to throw in a clarification on the passage.
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

[Agadefe]

I also don't think most Christians interpret that passage (nor have ever interpreted it) as needing to sell everything and give to the poor in order to go to heaven.

It's just something Jesus recommends, and actually is probably a pretty reasonable path to happiness (Buddhists have similar teachings).

All humans are flawed, however, so not following this particular thing in no way implies you will go to hell.

[Entropy]

For all of you complaining about the Brontosaurus; get back to us when one scientist kills another over whether or not it was actually real.

TIA!

[ditkaworshipper]

We can also thank science for the nuclear bomb. What's your point?

[internetguy87]

This thread was fun when it was just posters, like the title says =(.

[Entropy]

We can also thank science for the nuclear bomb. What's your point?

Whatever the point was for talking about the Brontosaurus in the first place. My guess: no point.

[abt5]

We can also thank science for the nuclear bomb. What's your point?

gosh, we'll be thanking science for that when it's used to deflect astroids.

[Entropy]

We can also thank science for the nuclear bomb. What's your point?

Thinking about this a bit, pretty sure it was some military dude that killed a bunch of people with the bomb, not a scientist. Now you're just complaining about Nationalism and the military, not science. What's your point?

[Noddy]

gosh, we'll be thanking science for that when it's used to deflect astroids.

It will likely, unfortunately, be used by one fundy state or another. Likely Iran or America. Armageddon you know.

[Listeria]

In case this hasn't yet been posted (I'm still reading the thread!):

http://images4.cpcache.com/product_zoom/21466544v36_480x480_Front_Color-White_padToSquare-true.jpg

[ditkaworshipper]

Thinking about this a bit, pretty sure it was some military dude that killed a bunch of people with the bomb, not a scientist. Now you're just complaining about Nationalism and the military, not science. What's your point?
Everyone complains about how religion isn't giving us scientific progress, but no one is willing to point out that scientific progress is what gives religion the power to destroy.

Stupid science!

[abt5]

http://rlv.zcache.com/jesus_lol_poster-p228905252605670549t5wm_400.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/jesus-jesus-apple-roflcopter-omfg-owned-lol-omg-rofl-lmao-demotivational-poster-1225478298.png

[abt5]

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/data/roadbike/500/jesus_lol.jpg

[abt5]

http://thisis.cjdaweasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jesus-demotivational-poster-1206550914.jpg

[abt5]

http://www.christiandoctrinediscussion.com/attachments/general-discussion-forum/16d1265746875-truly-possible-defeat-sin-flesh-life-epic-fail-god-demotivational-poster.jpg

[The Drunken Actuary]

Everyone complains about how religion isn't giving us scientific progress, but no one is willing to point out that scientific progress is what gives religion the power to destroy.

Stupid science!

Um...what?

[abt5]

http://www.yeeeeee.com/wp-content/2008/06/jesus-dinner.gif

[Inconceivable]

Um...what?

He's saying that without science to give us bullets, tanks, bombs...the guys taht are killing because of religion would have a harder time killing. Science has made it easier/faster to kill more people.

[abt5]

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/744/jesuska.jpg

[Noddy]

Everyone complains about how religion isn't giving us scientific progress, but no one is willing to point out that scientific progress is what gives religion the power to destroy.

Stupid science!

nukes dont kill people - people kill people

Let me be chrystal

Scientific progress gives irrational superstitious apes the power to destroy the world.

This is one reason why I am so passionate.

And if you think I'm millitant now - faithbots wont want to know me if I survive a religiously precipitated armageddon

[Listeria]

He's saying that without science to give us bullets, tanks, bombs...the guys taht are killing because of religion would have a harder time killing. Science has made it easier/faster to kill more people.
I can't believe you missed what he was saying!

It was a brilliant comment, ditka.

[abt5]

the only things brilliant here are my posters, but no one appreciates my efforts.

[Listeria]

nukes dont kill people - peolpe kill people

Let me be chrystal

Scientific progress gives irrational superstitious apes the power to destroy the world.

This is one reason why I am so passionate.

And if you think I'm millitant now - faithbots wont want to know me if I survive a religiously precipitated armageddon

How do we go about curtailing both, though? (move to new thread if you like)

[Listeria]

the only things brilliant here are my posters, but no one appreciates my efforts.
A lot of your posts in this thread are awesome. Apologies to Pseudolus. (But Pseud, many of them are funny setting aside any "biting" quality they might have!)

[ditkaworshipper]

the only things brilliant here are my posters, but no one appreciates my efforts.
:iatp:

[Noddy]

How do we go about curtailing both, though? (move to new thread if you like)

what? both irrationality and superstition?

some of us choose ridicule

[Entropy]

Everyone complains about how religion isn't giving us scientific progress, but no one is willing to point out that scientific progress is what gives religion the power to destroy.

Stupid science!

Pretty sure religion doesn't need scientific progress to destroy anything. It just makes it way easier and sometimes clearer what the goal is when it does. To be clear, I'm advocating not killing anyone, regardless of what tools are available.

[gomer_tree]

I look forward to your axiom argument and you saying your axiom is Jesus was the son of god. Cuz that's what your axiom needs to be, lol.

Why would anyone feel compelled to respond to said axiom that is followed by the quesitoner with lol.

This is what places certain people in what was previously referred to as the "asshat" category.

[crabber]

This is what places certain people in what was previously referred to as the "asshat" category.

What is the category called now?