I Find Your Lack Of Faith Quite Alright (632 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.46 on 35 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Hate Mudkips (View user info) at 2009-05-08 11:03:31 EDT
As seen on http://www.ubersite.com/m/122121
"To say that God's existence is disproven wholly because it hasn't been proven is just as short-sighted as saying that the Theory Of Relativity doesn't exist because that hasn't been proven either. Since we have neither the means nor the technology to prove or disprove a seemingly simple idea like Relativity, how can we expect to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power? "
Umm, not quite. Theories are NOT hypotheses. Theories have scads of evidence supporting them. Theories have been tested, and tested, and tested, and tested some more. The theory of gravity goes unquestioned; why? Because things fall, time and time and time and time again. If one day a ball was dropped and it hovered in mid-air, then we would have to test and test and test again the theory of gravity and make appropriate changes.
There is no way to test the existence of a supernatural being. Since there is no evidence, or testability of the hypothesis that there is a god or goddess or flying spaghetti monster, science cannot concern itself with the idea.
That said, before the advent of the scientific method and all its progress, it is interesting to note that not a single culture, anywhere EVER on this planet has been without religious practices of some sort. I think the question is WHY do humans feel the need to invent fantastical, supernatural deities, events and rituals, write them down, change the ancient myths handed down to them into something more relevant for the time period/culture, put to death those that disagree, attempt to have the tenets of their mish-mash religion installed as law (or succeed in that e.g. sharia)?
Religion has done little to progress fields like medicine(god will heal me), physics(god controls every atom in the universe), genetics(god created us all and made the DNA between humans and chimps 98% alike just to test our faith), geology(earth is 6000 years old), astronomy(the sun revolved around the earth until just a few hundred years ago), and biology(god did it and all species of animals alive today fit on a large wooden boat during a worldwide flood, but not the dinosaurs because their fossils are there to test our faith). What good, then, does it serve?
People actively participating in a church or faith of some type have increased social capital--- that is, more ties to other people, lifelines if you will, in both crises and good times. Meditation, whether it be in the form of prayer to Mary or Jesus, or Buddhist meditation is good for the body, regulating respiration, lowering blood pressure, etc. Practitioners of any faith feel satisfied after performing a ritual—such as prayer, confession, or lighting a candle in their ancestor shrine.
The trance state, achieved in some faiths by ritualistic consumption of psychedelic substances, steady drum beats, chanting and singing, is unique in that followers of different faiths will have different interpretations of the phenomena associated with a trance or altered mental state. Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is experienced not only in fundamentalist Christian sects but also in the ancient practices of peoples all over the world. A Christian sees glossolalia as being 'touched by the Holy Spirit', but a practitioner of indigenous belief in Africa may see it as the wisdom of an ancestor spirit, or totem animal. The material explanation arrived at by a number of studies is that glossolalia is "learned behavior". What is taught in the ritual or church meeting is the ability to produce language-like speech. This is only a partial explanation, but it has been tested numerous times.
I digress. The functions of religion are, in my opinion, to foster close ties with other people, reinforce the norms of that group, explain the whys of human existence (Why do bad things happen to good people? What happens when we die?), and distinguish that culture from others by furnishing an ideology of common purpose and values. Spirituality, a concern with the sacred, is individual in nature, requiring no specific distinctive organization or format. I am neither spiritual nor religious; I find both to be wholly unnecessary, but respect the rights of others who find religious practice essential and beneficial to their lives.
Picture somewhat related.
User Reviews
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-11 09:01:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
>>Also, get a dictionary. Athiests do not believe in a higher power. At all. By definition, a Wiccan is not an Athiest, as they have an established religion, they would be theists, which is the exact opposite of an Athiest.<<
Since you don't seem to be getting it, let me accent the proper syllables for you.
>>A notable number of Atheists, like Wiccans, BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPOUT THEIR BELIEFS AT THE DROP OF THE HAT... however much they hate it, as you pointed out, when other people do it.<<
What am I comparing in the above statement, Sandy? Let's look at it again, this time with the comparison denoted in simple markup tags.
>>A notable number of Atheists, like Wiccans, <comparison> BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPOUT THEIR BELIEFS AT THE DROP OF THE HAT</comparison>... however much they hate it, as you pointed out, when other people do it.<<
Am I comparing the religious beliefs of Wiccans and Atheists? Am I somehow cleverly stating that Atheists form covens and sit about in a circle wearing renfest costumes and burning incense? Do I assign any of the Wiccan gods/godesses to some manner of atheist pantheon?
No. Stop being so fucking dense.
What I'm saying is that some Atheists, <comparison>LIKE SOME WICCANS</comparison>, feel they have the right to spout off on the otherwise delicate topic of religion at the drop of a hat. This is a glaring double standard, as most of them absolutely hate it when religious types (Jehova's Witnesses in your comparison) do this to them.
Savvy?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-11 08:45:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
To review (again), here's what I'm saying: atheists are not a separate species. They are just as prone to arrogance, stupidity, and fallacy as any other human on the planet. Preachy atheists are just as annoying as preachy religious folk.
Before we get into the science of today becoming the psuedo-science of tommorow, to say nothing of science and spirituality not being mutually exclusive, what specific part of the above paragraph do you have an issue with?
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-10 22:38:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Finally, yes, that dinner scene is so very common in America. In fact that dinner scene has happened exactly zero times to me.
Also, get a dictionary. Athiests do not believe in a higher power. At all. By definition, a Wiccan is not an Athiest, as they have an established religion, they would be theists, which is the exact opposite of an Athiest.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-10 22:35:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nobody is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Here is a little link to eugenics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics yes I'm aware that wikipedia isn't a scholerly source, but I want to point out something- "At its pre-war zenith, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity." Since we all know that this is what you are referring to by bringing up Eugenics let's all breath in the word pseudoscience. As in - not real science, but made to look like science. Much like the atom bomb, science can give us the information, but can't tell us how to use it. Eugenics is just a controlled idea of natural selection, unfortunately, it became a race related pseudoscience instead of the "let's try to breed bigger, stronger, smarter people" that it was intended to be. However, it was supported and pushed by many world governments, and *GASP!* the church.
Watch out for those splinters you so kindly warned me about.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-10 22:13:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-10 19:29:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
>>One of the joy's of science is that it corrects itself. It maybe slow, and it may even be slightly painful, but it does admit to it's mistakes, corrects them, and embraces the new information. But, you're right religion does the same thing.<<
And this stops it from being frequently wrong? This somehow revised history to prevent the atheists in communist Russia or revolutionary France from putting people to death for no better reason than "they're not like me"? Scientific method != infallibility. Atheists are just as prone to being apeshit morons as any other group.
>>So, let's all give the church a big round of applause for coming around and telling Africa to use condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS. You're right, religion sure has had an effect on medicine. <<<
Last I checked, Papa Ben doesn't have a monopoly on Christianity, let alone religion or spirituality. Though it's far from the point you seem to be deliberately missing, I'm one of the first to call him an obsolete relic.
However, to play devil's advocate, you can thank Catholic monasteries for propagating literacy through the dark ages, various Irish monks for risking their lives to save texts from Viking invasion forces, Pope Leo for saving Rome from the Huns while the emporer hid, and a monk named Mendel for discovering genetics. These are just Catholics (apples to apples), mind. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims also made considerable contributions to science and art.
>> You've proven your point! So much so, that you call me the very next time a Darwin's witness knocks on your door to spread the good word, and I'll totally have your back!<<
As you seem to be deliberately missing the point, let me provide you with an illustration:
<Scene: any dinner>
Person 1: Last week I was at church and ran into...
Person 2: You were at church?
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: So you're a Christian then.
Person 1: Yes.
Person 2: I'm not. I'm an atheist.
Person 1: That's nice.
Person 2: I don't see how you can believe in a zombie Jew. Let me quote Mark Twain and cite a theory coined by a churchman, which I assume you do not believe in because I'm stupid and don't question much. Please stab me in the throat if I get too annoyingly and blatheringly intrusive.
A notable number of Atheists, like Wiccans, believe they have the right to spout their beliefs at the drop of the hat... however much they hate it, as you pointed out, when other people do it.
>> Also, I will totally help you hose down the next group of protestors holding a sign that says "SCIENCE HATES FAGS".<<
See: eugenics.
If you don't stop digging at the bottom of the barrel, you're going to get splinters.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-10 19:29:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-10 14:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
>>What we can observe is the basis for our postulations. The universe is ceaselessly expanding. This is observable and documented.<<
Phrenology, eugenics, civilization on Mars, the curative effects of nicotine, earth as the center of the universe, flat earth theory, the floating womb, the humours, the "falling damps". What do these fallacies have in common? All were rooted in things that were "observable and documented".
I'm not saying that science is wrong or evil. I'm not saying that it hasn't produced wonderfult things, or that I stand one way or the other on evolution or any other hot-button topic (irrelevant, really). What I am saying is that facts are open to interpretation, and that scientists, like any other group, are prone to making fallacious interpretation.
In other words, the scientific "fact" of today will be the "I can't believe anyone was actually stupid enough to believe that" of tommorow.
>>Why? Is the universe/multiverse cyclical in nature? I personally cannot answer that (although an astrophysicist probably would have at least an inkling) and honestly, neither can religion.<<
Heh. You're putting your faith (see? faith!) in a few decade's worth of observation made from a pinprick in the backwaters of a backwater galaxy and extrapolating from that drop in the bucket the alpha and omega of what you assume is a multiverse. Will we even be able to call that observation 'reliable' in 50 years time? Doubtful. Is it likely that humans will ever know how the world, let alone the universe, came to be? Equally doubtful.
Embrace the fact that you will never know how your species, let alone the universe, really came to be, accept that your take on the genesis of life the universe and everything is really just as likely as any other bloke's. Only then will you realize that it has absolutely no affect on the price of groceries or whether or not you'll die tommorow.
>>We exist to propagate our own existence.<<
That sounds like fun. I mean, to hell with a geocentric universe, you essentially have a me-ocentric universe. The entire universe came into being so that you can get your rocks off.
>>Why do the devoutly religious insist upon no contraception, to include "pulling out" as a contraceptive method? [...] an ant, or a dog, or a lizard [...] What happens [...] are burnt or are desiccated by the creatures of the sea [...] in our guts, in the dirt, in the water [...] the source of horror films (as they resemble a semi-human consciousness) and more the comedic Fido-esque household pets/slaves.<<
You've spent 20 minutes telling me why religious people annoy you. Could you take another five to contemplate why ANTI-religious people would be just as annoying?
>>Can religion cure any disease? Can religion devise vaccines against the most lethal or debilitating illnesses?<<
Study your history. You'll find that botany, chemistry, and medicine were all heavilly influenced by religion. See Mendel et all. Not that it matters. As it wasn't my point.
My point was, to review, that preachy atheists are just as irritating as preachy religious folk. You've proven this quite well, so I suppose I should thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the joy's of science is that it corrects itself. It maybe slow, and it may even be slightly painful, but it does admit to it's mistakes, corrects them, and embraces the new information. But, you're right religion does the same thing.
So, let's all give the church a big round of applause for coming around and telling Africa to use condoms to help stop the spread of AIDS. You're right, religion sure has had an effect on medicine.
You've proven your point! So much so, that you call me the very next time a Darwin's witness knocks on your door to spread the good word, and I'll totally have your back! Also, I will totally help you hose down the next group of protestors holding a sign that says "SCIENCE HATES FAGS".
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2009-05-10 19:05:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-05-08 08:17:31 PDT (#)
Ranking: -2
enough of this already.
what a boring subject
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-10 14:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
>>What we can observe is the basis for our postulations. The universe is ceaselessly expanding. This is observable and documented.<<
Phrenology, eugenics, civilization on Mars, the curative effects of nicotine, earth as the center of the universe, flat earth theory, the floating womb, the humours, the "falling damps". What do these fallacies have in common? All were rooted in things that were "observable and documented".
I'm not saying that science is wrong or evil. I'm not saying that it hasn't produced wonderfult things, or that I stand one way or the other on evolution or any other hot-button topic (irrelevant, really). What I am saying is that facts are open to interpretation, and that scientists, like any other group, are prone to making fallacious interpretation.
In other words, the scientific "fact" of today will be the "I can't believe anyone was actually stupid enough to believe that" of tommorow.
>>Why? Is the universe/multiverse cyclical in nature? I personally cannot answer that (although an astrophysicist probably would have at least an inkling) and honestly, neither can religion.<<
Heh. You're putting your faith (see? faith!) in a few decade's worth of observation made from a pinprick in the backwaters of a backwater galaxy and extrapolating from that drop in the bucket the alpha and omega of what you assume is a multiverse. Will we even be able to call that observation 'reliable' in 50 years time? Doubtful. Is it likely that humans will ever know how the world, let alone the universe, came to be? Equally doubtful.
Embrace the fact that you will never know how your species, let alone the universe, really came to be, accept that your take on the genesis of life the universe and everything is really just as likely as any other bloke's. Only then will you realize that it has absolutely no affect on the price of groceries or whether or not you'll die tommorow.
>>We exist to propagate our own existence.<<
That sounds like fun. I mean, to hell with a geocentric universe, you essentially have a me-ocentric universe. The entire universe came into being so that you can get your rocks off.
>>Why do the devoutly religious insist upon no contraception, to include "pulling out" as a contraceptive method? [...] an ant, or a dog, or a lizard [...] What happens [...] are burnt or are desiccated by the creatures of the sea [...] in our guts, in the dirt, in the water [...] the source of horror films (as they resemble a semi-human consciousness) and more the comedic Fido-esque household pets/slaves.<<
You've spent 20 minutes telling me why religious people annoy you. Could you take another five to contemplate why ANTI-religious people would be just as annoying?
>>Can religion cure any disease? Can religion devise vaccines against the most lethal or debilitating illnesses?<<
Study your history. You'll find that botany, chemistry, and medicine were all heavilly influenced by religion. See Mendel et all. Not that it matters. As it wasn't my point.
My point was, to review, that preachy atheists are just as irritating as preachy religious folk. You've proven this quite well, so I suppose I should thank you.
Submitted by HateMudkips (user info) at 2009-05-09 01:55:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"See? This is devout atheism. It's just as blatheringly and mindlessly annoying as your Jack Chick or Jerry Falwell."
There is nothing devout about my lack of belief in the supernatural. I concede that religion plays a part in social structure, and has done so for thousands of years. Is it necessary now, for me? I find it not. I am not ostracized, or put on the rack or crucified for being an atheist. I do not attempt to deconvert the religious by using reason, facts, or evidence. However, one must question why using the above in a rational debate on observable phenomena would emotionally engage the believer to the point of hostility and ad hominem arguments.
"Do you know with even a vague degree of certainty how the world came into being? No. Does Papa Ben or the Dalai Llama? Not really."
Do you? Does anyone? Absolutely not. What we can observe is the basis for our postulations. The universe is ceaselessly expanding. This is observable and documented. This expansion had to begin somewhere. Why? Is the universe/multiverse cyclical in nature? I personally cannot answer that (although an astrophysicist probably would have at least an inkling) and honestly, neither can religion.
"Do you know why we exist or what happens when we die? No. Ditto for the other two."
We exist to propagate our own existence. Why do the devoutly religious insist upon no contraception, to include "pulling out" as a contraceptive method? What if the dominant religion of a world power promoted and at times enforced absolute abstinence, and condemned those that procreate(or attempt) to immediate death? How long would said religion last? Why the insistence upon an afterlife? We are aware of our own mortality, that is true. Is an ant, or a dog, or a lizard not aware of its mortality? Try torturing any species of fauna. They are quite aware that they are mortal, and will protest accordingly attempts to relieve them of their existence. They sing and dance and puff their throats to mate and propagate and continue their genetic code. So do we.
What happens when we die? We die. Our bodies decay in a wooden box or are burnt or are desiccated by the creatures of the sea; we are shot into space or mummified or used as medical research; our flesh is consumed by the microorganisms on our skin, in our guts, in the dirt, in the water. Does consciousness persist? I doubt it; otherwise zombies would be not the source of horror films (as they resemble a semi-human consciousness) and more the comedic Fido-esque household pets/slaves.
"Can you cure the common cold? No? Neither can they."
Can religion cure any disease? Can religion devise vaccines against the most lethal or debilitating illnesses? Can religion provide in-depth physical examinations revealing conditions that may have gone untreated for years? Can faith devise a way to remove a PXA in the temporoparietal lobe of a 17-year-old brain?
"All three of you have theories as to how and why everything that happens happens. All of you are probably wrong. If you feel the need to defend your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, you're not only insecure; you're an idiot.
Sit down and shut up."
You missed my point. Religion attempts to explain the whys- "Why do bad things happen to good people, what happens when I die, Why am I here, why is there war"; the scientific method, and all fields scientific: astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, anatomy, biology, medicine, anthropology, psychology, mathematics explain HOW.
I feel no need to defend my lack of belief; after all, I have run the gamut of belief, from devout Christianity to agnosticism to skepticism to an atheist or whatever-ism-you'd-like-to-call-it-now.
What is puzzling to me, however, is the seeming need of religious adherents of ANY flavor to resort to hostility, ad hominem statements and rigid arrogance to assert their beliefs, or their beliefs' merit in the face of contradictory evidence, testimony and observable data.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-05-08 19:15:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-08 16:27:46 CDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was talking to Mudkips. Not you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we still give each other bro hugs behind the barn? :)
====
Hug it out, bitches.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:27:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was talking to Mudkips. Not you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we still give each other bro hugs behind the barn? :)
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:27:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Heh. Because atheists never killed ANYONE in the name of non-religion. Not during the Reign of Terror. Certainly not in any communist countries anywhere. Seriously:
* Sit down
* Shut up
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:24:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Point being that no one was there. So any creation story, whether it be based on tradition, vague observations made from a pinprick dot in the backwaters of the Galaxy, or a mixture of the two, are pure speculation. Moreover, who gives a fuck?
Submitted by RoadSong (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:23:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Why do people insist on killing each other in the name of God?
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was talking to Mudkips. Not you.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-08 17:00:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You fail both Astronomy and Biology if those are your arguments.
Tell me why a plate of spaghetti is more ridiculous than an invisible zombie jew who lives in the sky and has a plan for all of us, yet gives us free will, and who made everything including all life in a perfect form then planted fossils and screwed up radiometric dating just to test our faith.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 16:55:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
How is a plate of spaghetti any less idiotic than the idea of a huge explosion and human beings evolving out of algae? Seriously, come up with a creation story that DOESN'T border on ridiculous. Or better yet, don't. Just sit down and quit blathering about how YOUR take on reality is just slightly better than the rest of the planet's.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2009-05-08 16:45:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
See? This is devout atheism. It's just as blatheringly and mindlessly annoying as your Jack Chick or Jerry Falwell.
Do you know with even a vague degree of certainty how the world came into being? No. Does Papa Ben or the Dalai Llama? Not really.
Do you know why we exist or what happens when we die? No. Ditto for the other two.
Can you cure the common cold? No? Neither can they.
All three of you have theories as to how and why everything that happens happens. All of you are probably wrong. If you feel the need to defend your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, you're not only insecure; you're an idiot.
Sit down and shut up.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-08 13:59:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:07:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Godwin's Law states that Whenever somebody compares something to Hitler in a political discussion, they automatically lose their argument.
I propose BLITZKREIG_BOB's law:
Whenever somedody mentions "flying spaghetti monster" in a religious discussion, they lose their argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. See comparisons to Hitler are incredibly stupid, and they are not made with an ironic intent. However, I find it exactly as plausible that a plate of spaghetti, rather than zombie jesus, is my loving creator.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-05-08 12:27:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
PLUS FUCKING 5!
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2009-05-08 12:22:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The concept of 'religion' bringing people closer together is as old a history itself, and it is a good thing. Too many out there wish to be seen as greater than their peers, and that is a bad thing. If any religion, mystic or secular, brings people together in harmony, I'd call it good.
Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2009-05-08 12:17:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well put.
The point I ultimately tried to make was that trying to prove or disprove God's existence is silly and only leads to negative things between people with different beliefs. Instead, I proposed taking a different approach by taking religion COMPLETELY out of the picture and exchanging ideas as to WHY people believe in a higher power, which is what you have done.
I enjoyed this.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2009-05-08 12:16:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nothing about my reasoning is nihilistic. Rather, it points out what "logical" minds refuse to consider. Your logic and so-called reasoning, in your own opinions, could not possibly be wrong. How fucking pretentious is that? Your wondrous mind must be infallible, but others must be less than perfect? Think about that. Are you always right in every instance? Doubtful.
Submitted by Toddler (user info) at 2009-05-08 12:09:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bubba inadvertently comes in with a nihilistic line of reasoning.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2009-05-08 12:00:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Replace 'feel' with 'see'. Sorry.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:56:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
According to some, logic and rationality are the mainstays of truth. But what if you are wrong? What if faith in the unseen, the unknowable, the mystic, is really the truth? Do ghosts really exist, even though you cannot prove it scientifically? Same thing with God. All of you insist that you are open-minded, but think about that. No, you aren't. If you can't feel, touch, taste, hear, or smell it, it isn't real. Pardon me, but I call bullshit. IMHO.
Submitted by monkeyswithguns (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:51:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fighting the never-ending battle too?
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:35:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for the title
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for the title
ONLY
-2 DIE RELIGION
Submitted by Toddler (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
All we need now is a hardcore atheist to take this shit to the next level.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:17:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
enough of this already.
what a boring subject
Submitted by HateMudkips (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Is the idea of a flying spaghetti deity, or a teapot orbiting the sun, or Shiva any more testable, falsifiable or ludicrous than the idea of a resurrected god-man?
"I propose BLITZKREIG_BOB's law:
Whenever somedody mentions "flying spaghetti monster" in a religious discussion, they lose their argument. "
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:13:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah basically.
I used to believe once upon a time, I just couldn't continue to believe and futz about with faith once I sat down and really thought about everything logically and rationally. It occurred to me that to believe in a god and to practice faith, you have to shut down quite a bit of your inherent reason. Now I get chills when I think that the more feverishly and zealous an individual is with his/her religion, the more of their mind they've had to shut down.
Does that not frighten you?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:07:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I was holding off on getting involved in these "religion" posts, because it's been done 50 times before.
However...
Godwin's Law states that Whenever somebody compares something to Hitler in a political discussion, they automatically lose their argument.
I propose BLITZKREIG_BOB's law:
Whenever somedody mentions "flying spaghetti monster" in a religious discussion, they lose their argument.
Submitted by SullyThePirate (user info) at 2009-05-08 11:06:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Isn't the topic of religion a notorious dead end that just leads to frustration and mysteriously dead uber users? Can't we all just agree that none of us will ever agree on such a vast subject and no matter how much we argue our points, the other side will not under any circumstance budge an inch.