And you keep glossing over the most significant atrocities in modern times attributable directly to secularists. So yeah go ahead and suck Stalin cock some more.

and then we have chaol over here, he's probably smoking about as much crack as his pedo friend hunter, and most likely sucking dick for cash, that's his reality. :shrug:

smoking crack and engaging in some incestuous pedophilia, just like everyone else who disagrees with you

it's friday and i'm ready to treat myself

i bet you are, since that is your reality.

a reality where you don't mind condoning behavior like that, and even consider it okay to vote in as leadership of your country.

Btw i ****ing love that the guy who used to shill for muslims in every remotely anti-muslim thread is now using their beliefs to attack the whole population. It's absolutely awesome.

I don't see what you're trying to prove with this. It's not like I ever claimed that being an atheist or secularist automatically makes you moral or reasonable. Claiming monopoly on morals is religion's thing.

Will you try to answer my question?

You keep bringing up the negatives of religion as if nothing bad happens outside of religious belief. Secularists have killed millions while attempting to eliminate religious beliefs. Your track record is HORRENDOUS, and very short.

Belief in god is very likely the foundation of all our morals. Almost all humans across all cultures since the dawn of time have held beliefs in higher power. You can CLAIM that your moral compass is your own doing but so far I've yet to see you post any historical evidence for that assertion.

And your question is ****ing stupid. Belief in god IS reality. It has been reality since our dawn.

First of all: spanish inquisition. Might wanna tone down the moral superiority thing just a little.

Second, I never claimed that nothing bad ever happens outside of religious belief. What religious and secular genocides have in common is that they're both based in irrational beliefs that don't align with reality. Which is why allowing your view of reality to be undermined by irrational beliefs, religious or otherwise, is ****ing dangerous and you should stop.

Third, may I remind you:

Oh you mean both secular and religious humans are capable of evil? No way..... no way....

Stalin killed millions. Why should I be secular give me a good reason plz

Because the rational position is to withhold belief in any claim until sufficient evidence is pesented. Thus, secularism is the default until some religion succeeds in making good on its burden of proof.

You would not be asking this same question about leprechauns and fairies, and the reasoning is exactly the same.

You keep asking for good reasons and I keep telling you we've succeeded across multiple cultures and tens of thousands of years with religious beliefs. So far our track record after God's death is NOT SO GREAT.

What evidence do you have that we're better off secular?

The fact that the same logic that tells us that we should be secular is also the basis for the scientific method, which has improved quality of life immensely whereever it was applied. Because, you know, aligning your thinking to match reality tends to help.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that said success is because of the religious belief. In fact, considering that religious genocides have been a thing as long as religions themselves, one could consider it lucky that we succeeded despite them.

Plus, you know, the physical evidence quoted above which demonstrates that people use "god's will" as an excuse to justify whatever they already believe.

Plus, you know


Like, you know


In fact, like, as you know

Religious genocides are proof that religion is bad.

Secular genocides are just, like, you know, some other thing.

im just a fan of genocide in general

I prefer my genocide commanded by God.

He/it has a long history of it

99.9% of all species ever known are extinct.

i'm of no particular denomination. i just believe that there may be a higher power. i believe there is something after death. i believe in other planes of existence and thought. i am also a graduate of stem degrees.

i respect your right NOT to believe in anything, that's fine.

but when you start hating on others, especially vocally, i believe you are in the wrong.

I agree with you that there is something after death. I believe out bodies break down and our atoms release and propagate throughout the universe (though likely a lot closer). I believe that something created the universe we live in currently, but that we're also likely one of many. I believe that with as many planets/galaxies/universes out there we are not special; but given the sheer size of space we will not meet others. I think it is ok just living in the moment, adopting social contracts to enjoy what we have now and not tread on others but also not do things now to make whatever happens when we die hypothetically better. I do not believe in anyone telling me that I have to live a certain way to get some completely unknown afterlife happen. I believe that's just a means of control. I also believe that many very good people follow that and are a joy to be around, and unlike Amadeus (why are you all responding to him) that it is great. I do not believe that large scale decisions for all humans should be based on mythical feelings.

I also think that norse/egyptian/Greek pantheons are the coolest. And I think that anyone who wants to believe in Jesus should read up on the first two and realize it is very much copied from those.

Whatever blows your hair back as long as it doesn't affect my life.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Irrational beliefs are dangerous.

Religion is irrational belief.

Therefore, religion is dangerous.


This is the textbook example of a syllogism. If both premises are true, then the conclusion is also true.

Let us know which premise you disagree with.

Thank you for admitting that it's irrational to push secularism on humanity. It's dangerous.

lol rekt

bro your logic is sound. His isnt.

you cant rationalize with someone that thinks its cool to **** kids. Youre not going to get through

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Pagy again.

The Wiki and other web sites make it easy to study religion today. Back in the day, people didn't have this. So they followed what was local, and for most, it's the Christian bible.

It's Sunday, I was watching In Touch ministries on TV. The message was about surrendering your life to God. Give everything you have, because a pastor is telling you. No Thanks. I watch these shows knowing it's a cult. I always knew this and would say that to Laurie. She would get pissed at me and bring that up later saying it's not a cult.

If religion is so great, then why do they resort to Guilt (Christianity) and Violence (Islam) to keep their followers?

It's not guilt. You need to read more wikipedia I think. The entire point of most of the teachings is to follow an ideal (Jesus for example) and on that path you'll reach "heaven"

By that same method the teachings expose you to hell so that you can know what it is and how to avoid it.

These are very basic fundamental lessons. Position yourself towards the greatest good you can imagine, follow that path and good things will come to you. Understand your own capacity for evil and control it so you don't "go to hell"

You can boil this lesson down from a million different stories. The point being that it works well on an individual level and has a proven track record.

There could be no more relevant question then:

Does God exist?

You are welcome to describe a different causal agent that could be equally responsible, but you'll find that when you try, you will always arrive at the same place...

A dog becoming a different type of dog, is not proof that it can become a totally different animal.

Whales being whales does not prove that they can become seven-headed-hydras.

It's not mythology to know that somebody built my clock.

It's nothing but pure common sense to look at something with highly complex design, such as a web application, and know that it has been built by something intelligent.

Yes, and when you try to come up with another causal agent for the creation of the universe, you will face the same dilemma. It will just be God by another name.

There is nothing wrong with making a proposition, so long as you test it, measure it, look for flaws, see if it holds up under scrutiny, and see if the evidence supports that proposition.

What if, in the above example, they take an honest look at all of the hard-evidence for 10 straight years, with 5,000 experiments conducted with a sincere attempt to prove it wrong, and not even one piece of evidence suggesting that it is wrong ever surfaces?

Intelligent design holds up excellently under scientific scrutiny, as it should, since it is the truth.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct.

I have not added any complexity.

How does a painter paint a painting without intelligence or consciousness?

I say this with full respect, but I do not believe I'm the one adding complexity to the discussion.

Stripping things away does not always equate to things being less complex. Sometimes it makes things even harder to understand.

No, I do not view this universe as a place specifically built for me. If it were such a place, there would also be at least a 50 to 1 girl to guy ratio on this planet. We'd also be able to exist in outer-space without instantly dying. I believe we are woefully underequipped to deal with the universe we have spawned into and it is full of tremendous suffering, misery, and death. This only serves to make it more miraculous that we are here.

It definitely looks to me as if we do not belong here, or have any right to be here.

I understand your puddle example and I can appreciate how you view the world.

But in my thoughts on puddles and potholes, we are not a part of that picture at all.

I've never argued that science teaches creeds on life. There must have been a disconnect at some point.

What I'm saying is that Secular Humanism teaches that life has no intrinsic purpose, meaning, or value.

As I have not been corrected on this, I think it is safe to say that we agree.

Yes, this is the secular humanistic stance. This stance is perhaps the most dangerous positive assertion the worldview makes.

My stance is that there are objective moral truths.

Intentionally torturing babies with intense physical pan for ones own entertainment, for example, will always be wrong, regardless of any cultural or environmental factors.

Oh I agree on all points.

There is no way to prove one way or the other.

I thought it was generally accepted science that there was a connection between depression and Atheism, but perhaps I was entirely wrong about that.

That makes sense.

I especially appreciated that study you linked.

I totally get how you feel.

And yet the notion strongly perpetuates that anyone religious despises science.

It is groanworthy to hear it every single time.

Mathematics are not causal by nature.

Where did the timeline for the math to operate come from?

Where did the space for the math to operate within come from?

The moment you remove the word 'intelligent' or 'conscious' from the picture, you just squash the whole thing into drivel.

The reason that the universe is designed is because you can put a gorilla on a typewriter and it will never write the book Tom Sawyer...


Religion seeps deeply in the mind. Different religions have different effects. Religions are not all of equal or similar power.

Christians being sent to their death by lions in Rome would sing joyfully as they were being devoured. Vikings would run joyfully to their deaths in battle, knowing that dying in a fight would mean Valhalla for them. Religion just takes things to another level.

While I'm sure that they spread through physical and cultural means as an assisting factor, I believe there is another power element about religion that overshadows those things.

If you change the seed just a little, we're not colored purple, we are just dead, along with the rest of the universe.

The effect of recalibration in any significant degree yields either cataclysm or non-existence.

No, I would never say that.

I'm saying that it was a letter written to people in Corinth, nothing more.

Corinth was a unique place with a lot of unique problems.

What I was saying is that it is effortless for someone to take things out of context if they so desire.

I would not minimize the teachings in such a manner. I was suggesting the opposite, that people's reactions to them in 2020 are a product of the times.

Often, the things we read in history are highly relevant to today.

However, they need to be read through a history lens, putting the culture of the times in context, if we are to understand what they mean on any sort of level. If a new story from one week ago can be easily misunderstood, what do you think will happen if we treat 2000 year old stories recklessly?

Why would we stop teaching such valuable stories that have stood the test of time?

To make room for WAP twerking as a much higher priority?

Would you rather your daughter listen to "The Prodigal Son" or listen to "there's some whores in this house" on repeat?

Society today is so woefully underequipped to raise children.

All society mostly teaches is twerking, pursuit of fame, lust for money, and thirst for power.

The deeper meanings of the stories in religious books can help guide a child to make good life decisions for decades.

If you do not fill a child's head with life-enriching stories, they will find life-corrupting stories to take their place.

ya but dont 4get 2 bring a bucket and a mop for that wet ass p-word

ily tpk happy belated bday

He is a very pleasant person to communicate with.

His ideas are very interesting and he articulates them very well.

You are boring me half to death at this point.

Eyeballs and irreducible complexity? No clue...

I get it, it's much better for you if I'm just a brainwashed kool-aid drinking automaton that rehearses scripted material right?

Not like you right? You are a free thinker.

*big yawn*

The 'ol tried and true accusation of intellectual dishonesty. I think this is #5 or #6 in this thread?

Oh, and it comes together with a packaged deal "you don't know science" mockery and humiliation, how nice.

Maybe people would stop asking questions if they started getting answered, rather then getting firehosed with negative emotional responses followed by insults, humiliation, mockery, and a refusal to answer the actual question?

Pagy, I swear you would complain about the smell if you crapped on your own face.

Discussing religious matters with you on here has been like going through a time-warp back to the 2nd grade of elementary school. You've got that "call the other guy a poopy pants" stuff seriously down man.

MC Hamster isn't better than you. He just made a willful adult decision to treat another human like a human and is acting upon that. You could just as easily do the same, but you choose to stick to your "poopy pants" stuff, which is your adult decision.

The way that you communicate with others is reflective of who you are on the inside.

Hahahahaha @ the pword.

Thanks Groove. You a bro. :)

I keep coming back to this because it's so unbelievably stupid.

Belief in a higher power can't be irrational because it cannot be objectively disproven, anymore than the multiverse hypothesis or the simulation hypothesis could be disproven. There's a reason these things are studied in philosophy and not theoretical physics -- they try to answer questions science isn't prepared to tackle.

Moreover, people commonly hold all sorts of irrational beliefs with absolutely no dangerous results. Do you have a lucky number? Do you believe all celebrity deaths come in threes? Have you ever loved someone who hated you? Have you ever argued with a pedophile on the internet?

So your premise is garbage and your conclusion is a ****ing joke. You should seriously kill yourself.

And if your religion is so great, why does it rely on mockery and humiliation to keep its followers?

No, that's actually a pretty irrelevant question. You've already noted there's nothing out there to empirically prove His existence. You're demanding the existence of some anonymous "Intelligent Designer", but even you don't seem to be willing to state that's the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God (and not one of the thousands of others people have and do believe in around the world, all of which come with their own creation mythology which is equally plausible if "there must be a consciousness behind this" is your only proof)


As I said, random chance. In an infinite number of dice throws, the one that results in you and me having this conversation must occur.


Now you're either being deliberately naive or else you genuinely don't understand evolution. This is not something there's really any significant scientific doubt over. The Cambrian Explosion took place over at least ten million years, which puts it longer than us hominids have even existed. Biologically speaking, it's really not that rapid. So yes, it's entirely possible for the sort of evolution those short-lived lifeforms would be subject to to have happened in that sort of timeframe.

Nonsense. Again, you're assuming conscious 'design' where there need not be any. Take that random number generator, punch a seed into it and it'll give you your social security number. Design? No. Punch in an infinite number of seeds, and one of those results must be that number. If you have a filter on that generator that will only show the number if it matches your social security number, then voila, there you have it. We have a filter on our universe as being one that works for us. Infinite random setups, and out we pop. No magic, no design or designer, just simple logic. We're here because we can be.



It really doesn't. There are any number of articles out there which point out the numerous flaws in that statement.

...and that right there is one of its fundamental flaws. It isn't until you prove it, and even then you should be open to the possibility that it is not. Your mind is closed to the possibility that it's wrong.

The process can happen perfectly well without a creator. There is absolutely no need for it. You are inserting a variable which need not exist. Yes: by definition, you are adding unnecessary complexity.

We are here. We are a product of the constants that created this universe. Other constants, we'd be different, or non-existent. Either way, we are the only possible outcome of this specific universe. In that way, it absolutely is made for us. The other universe with a 50:1 girl to guy ratio in which we fly through space and live in eternal bliss - that's out there too, it's just a different dice roll.

If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, I've already stated I don't know (or particularly care) what Secular Humanism teaches, I'm not here to try to put a label on my own thoughts on life. Therefore I'm not going to correct you. I'm not suggesting I agree though, only that I don't know. There's a fundamental difference in that reasoning that's somewhat relevant here.


"wrong"? What is "wrong"? Define it. How are you measuring that? Exactly how 'wrong' are these things? What is the unit of measurement? How does that compare to cheating on your wife, or lying on your tax return, or donating to charity?

Those would be entirely straightforward, simple questions to answer if what you stated was true. You could tell me down to ten decimal places how those compare. That's what "Objective" means.

No, morality is not objective. Morality is a human construct and entirely dependent on the subject. You would not need to cite such an extreme example if it weren't, because we'd be able to agree that sacrificing a goat to appease a god (the wrong one, not yours) is X units of wrong.

That by no means that secularism has no morality. Philosophers have discussed it since well before Christianity (or even monotheism) even existed, and I'd suggest that treating someone with kindness and respect because you are able to empathise with their situation is (subjectively) far more "moral" than doing so to secure your own place in some blissful afterlife. That is an entirely selfish stance and fundamentally lacks morality.


Yeah, but an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters and you get the entire Library of Congress. This is the bit you're skipping over or just not grasping. An infinite universe means this has to exist.

Yep. Politics and Power, it really comes down to that. Going back to a previous subject, Lithuania was home to the last surviving pagan religion in Europe. They actually had crusades called against them by the Pope. They adopted Christianity as a way to put an end the religiously-sanctioned invasion of their homeland by the Teutonic order, it really comes down to that. Accept Jesus or die. How does that rate on the objective morality scale?


Yep, so we're not around to wonder at those versions. We only get to see this one, with the familiar constants that 'work' for us. And yes, with one of those seeds, we are purple. We are every conceivable possibility.


Given that then, why raise the subject? If it's 'nothing more' than a letter to long-dead Corinthians, why is it still being published? You can't have it both ways. If you're saying that only bits and pieces of it are relevant, then you're beginning to make judgement calls on it, and if you're making judgement calls on it then you are imposing your own views on what is and what is not important to it. So you're going to be ignoring bits you don't agree with, while putting undue importance on the bits you like, consciously or not. If you're only accepting the bits that you view as 'still valid', then you acknowledge that there is no fundamental pervasive wisdom in there, just stuff that you agree with and stuff that you don't.

Why would we keep teaching those stories which have not? During the past 100 years we have unprecedented levels of advancement and development in all sorts of fundamental understandings of the universe, of personal and social development and change. How many of those stories have been edited out of the Bible as being no longer valid? We've had decades of evidence to say that camels just weren't around in the middle east in the time of Abraham, yet check out the book and there he still is, with his giant herds of animals which weren't there.

I'd prefer she go check out some Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams. Highly entertaining stuff and still with some very good messages, and no-one's going to kill you for not agreeing with them. Maybe she could go read some Plato, or Homer. Maybe go check out Tom Sawyer, or maybe even check out On the Origin of Species, or A Brief History of Time ;)


These things have never existed in the past. That's why Jesus had to go and trash the moneylenders who apparently didn't exist and weren't profiteering off the poor that one time. It's a good thing that he did though, and that two thousand years of teaching have stamped that sort of nonsense out entirely.

They can also break them entirely. The value is not in the story or the book, but in the lesson and the teacher, and that need not be one that involves sky wizards.

Again, there's no need for that to be religious. I'd also suggest that if the only thing keeping that child 'enriched' is having to live their life by a specific set of standards to face some theoretical reward or punishment at the end of it, then that child is woefully ill-equipped to deal with any situations which may fall outside of those specific rules and standards. That's where you get atrocities performed "in the name of the book" when someone can find the right way to interpret their hatred and bile.

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/s...490705414?s=20

Heh heh heh

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

I don't have a religion, but I've made a point saying America needs a US Bible.

It's too late for me to write a religion, but if I did, it would start when Christopher Columbus came to America and concentrate on the USA. There wouldn't be a super power son of God. It would focus on being a good person. It would be called The Book of Robert.

One day people will look to follow a different Bible, because the number of followers of religion in the US is dropping. Many articles like this.
In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace | Pew Research Center

Yes, it's called the Koran.

(I don't care how it is spelled).

there's nothing scientific about intelligent design. it's creationism. he's never going to drop it. anytime you explain to him how reality works, he rejects it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

Religion is great it makes people who are scared of this dude in the sky so they dont **** and steal and be a general *******.. I mean yeh ppl are going to taske advantage but they do that with business anyways so its just meh.

TWHOF.

Now.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk