Banning religion?

[Gustav]

oh
i was caned in singapore, flogged in saudi and am an ex smack addict

top that, fuckers

 

[superstring01]

be nice and make it happen, string

I'll PM James and see if he'll lift the ban.

~String

 

[superstring01]

oh
i was caned in singapore, flogged in saudi and am an ex smack addict

top that, fuckers

You win.

I'll give you my email address to send the naked pictures.

~String

 

[The Esotericist]

oh
i was caned in singapore, flogged in saudi and am an ex smack addict

top that, fuckers

Abducted by E.T.'s as a child, experimented on by the CIA via LSD, DMT etc. in college, and subsequently received three brain surgeries in adulthood barely surviving with my life. . .

I'll PM James and see if he'll lift the ban.

~String

Sounds equitable. We are, after all, all products of our environment, aren't we? You are noble and wise. My respect and gratitude to you sir.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Crunchy Cat,

Considering the world is dominated by Theism,

Really?
Can you demonstrate this?

...and human thinking is biased towards the kind of thinking that gives rise to theism, there is no real danager to becoming a theist. To have courage, you have to face a path with danger. So, while I will agree that some atheists become theists, I utterly disagree that courage plays any role.

Remind me again how there is danger in being or becoming an atheist?

I would agree with your statement if you replaced the phrase "Many theists" with "Extraordinarily few theists".
Perhaps your particular brand of personal theism shelters you from the experience somewhat. All theists (and I mean all) whom have ever asked me "how did the universe come into existence?" have responded to my answer of "I don't know" with "Ha! Well I do.". It's not surprising though, religions push a notion that belief/faith is (for example using christianity) "evidence of things unseen". The resulting mental gymnastics required to swallow that result in faith becoming objective evidence (i.e. I believe, therefore I know it's true because I have evidence by the mere act of believing).

There are alot of theists in the world, and perhaps you're being a little presumptious in you're summation.
The best way you can obtain some measure of what's going on, is to understand theism through theists (not only Christians). It's not as simple you seem to think.

Again, I would agree with your statement if you replaced the phrase "Many theists" with "Extraordinarily few theists".

That statement doesn't mean anything as you have no means of knowing what theists think, unless you actually KNOW what they think (which is obviously not the case).

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Obviously religion isn't only about where lightning comes from.

Isn't it?

There are certain corollaries that follow when one posits a divine creator, such as "the creator must be appeased," and "this is how to appease it." You'll notice even Christianity encourages blood sacrifice.

Yeah! Those bottles of wine must frikkin pay man!!

In other words, if you insist upon an intervening god, you can't avoid the creation of ethical codes in that god's name.

Find me someone who ''insists on inventing god'' and we'll look into that hypothesis.
What are the ''the creation of ethical codes in that god's name.''?

It doesn't have to be true of everyone to be true.

Really?

If anyone votes based on party lines and defends actions they would condemn from other politicians, then it is a true statement.

And what if they don't?
Also there may be strategic reasons for voting against other politicians or parties. For example in Britain people who hated Blair, still voted for him because they didn't want the opposition in.

People are complex, get over it.

Why wouldn't it? Are you saying religion can't address more than one thing?

You're the expert. You tell me.

I mean, have you ever read a holy text?
They explain the origin of the universe and predict its end, dictate what you can and can't eat, under what circumstances and in what positions sex is acceptable, even mandate a dress code. Religion doesn't only serve to explain where lightning comes from, it also attempts (or at least many of them do) to lay out specific guidelines for living.

Oh! So primitive man decided to extend scriptures. What? Was is like producing a second edition, where he included the complexities of specifically what to eat, how to prepare it, when to prepare it, and the reason one goes to that length (especially when rats, and rabbits aren't on the menu). At what point in our evolutionary past did we decide that the sun is millions of miles away, and there are other planets, and we reside in a universe. Was this in the third edition?

Well, I haven't "sprouted" anything. But of course I took into account the fact that no truth is universal. But it doesn't have to be. If 90% of devout Christians didn't kill in the name of their faith, but 10% did, then Christianity would still be dangerous. It doesn't have to be true for everyone to be true. Much in the same way you can be a good person without always being a good person. You can grasp this concept, no?

So is it fair to say that citizens of all the countries who decided to murder innocent men, women, and children (not to speak of animals) people of Iraq, are all murderers, the biggest murderer population being the USA?

Of course there's evidence. You know where to find it, it's there for you to see.

It boils down to inference. If there was evidence there would be no debate.
I don't see anyone debate micro-evolution.

No, religion is not an action. The exercising of religion is an action, but religion itself is not an action.

One can only ''exercise'' religion, to be religious.
''Martail Arts'' in an of itself, like ''religion'', is merely a word, but a martial artist can only be so if they act.
Duh!

There are a few non-theistic religions, but you aren't talking about those. You're trying to posit that "religion" is just another word for political thought or theory, which is incorrect.

Oh! So now you're a mind-reader?

Show me where I made that posit?

Meanwhile, I can point to scripture that has inspired people to do horrible things, or to religious leaders who use the trust and authority afforded them by their position to exploit people. Religion is without question dangerous.

So what if you can point to these things?
That has nothing to do with religion itself.
One more time with feeling..... man is corrosive, period.

Nope. It's entirely empirical, no faith needed. All you have to do is look at the evidence. It is true regardless of what you believe. The best example of this is Darwin himself, who found the concept of evolution unsettling. He was the last guy who would have expected or wanted such a thing to be true, but the evidence was such that he could not ignore it.

Thanks for a completely pointless statement.

That's my understanding of religion because that's what religion is. I mean, you say it isn't, but you haven't offered an alternative explanation. What are you waiting for?

I've given loads of definitionss of religion, even offering you a link, which you just explained away.
I don't think you really want to discuss anything.

As for whether or not I was a part of a religious institute, my mother is Catholic and my father is a lapsed Greek Orthodox. We didn't go to church or say prayers at dinner, I was never indoctrinated to believe--which is probably why I recognized my unbelief so early in life--but I did attend Catholic school in 4th and 5th grades, and again for 9th and 10th. But by then I already knew I didn't believe in it.

I must say the Catholic institute has been very successful in creating atheists.

It had nothing to do with fulfillment. I was too young to understand such a concept. It was simply about me seeing through the BS.

You overstate its fullness. And your failure to elaborate suggests you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and know nothing of this alleged "fullness" yourself.

I've elaborated lots of times, but you just make some stupid about me, or explain it away.

Of course it is. You can't tell me that a book explaining how the world came to be isn't making some very large statements about that world.

It depends who is reading the book. God is the origin of everything, you don't believe, but others do. So God explains (BG) how He is the origin of everything. So obviously you're going to get that information, but that isn't the point.

As I said, I was never indoctrinated, so I don't know how I'd react if I grew up enduring Hell Houses or having to constantly hear how evil homosexuality is.

Yeah! That's what religion is, isn't it?

I can't even imagine what I'd think if I were born to a Taliban family. I'd probably believe that killing women who show their faces in public is a righteous act.

Yeah! That IS Islam, isn't it

It would be easier to rebel against such an idea if it were just authority figures making the claim, but there are mandates for such acts in the texts, which are themselves supposedly handed down from on high. Imagine the influence such a claim would have on me had I been born into it.

Good question, and the point of my praise is that, you are an individual. You cannot speak for everyone as everyones
circumstances are abslolutely unique.

That isn't true. Some Muslims, thanks to Western pressures, have abandoned such practices, but this just means that they've abandoned one aspect of their faith. It doesn't mean that the faith is any different.

Statistically speaking, would you say that the west is responsible for murdering more people, than the
whole of the mid east put together, in the last 200 years?

And what do you mean not every scripture condones it? The only scripture that even addresses it in the Quran condones it. Doesn't just condone it--mandates it.

Really?


jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

Isn't it?

Are you suggesting that the sole purpose of Christianity is to explain where lightning comes from?

Yeah! Those bottles of wine must frikkin pay man!!

There I go again, assuming you're familiar with the topic we're discussing! When will I ever learn?

Find me someone who ''insists on inventing god'' and we'll look into that hypothesis.
What are the ''the creation of ethical codes in that god's name.''?

Okay, just to stay within one faith: Judaism. Yahweh intervenes in the affairs of Man, and carves commandments (ie Ethical codes) into stone tablets.

Your move, Mr. Fischer.

Really?

And what if they don't?
Also there may be strategic reasons for voting against other politicians or parties. For example in Britain people who hated Blair, still voted for him because they didn't want the opposition in.

Everyone says that during an election. I've been hearing "I'll take the lesser of two evils" since I was a kid. But in reality, plenty of people vote party line just because they're indoctrinated into believing that their party is what's best for them, regardless of the details. And at any rate, you're just trying to distract from the larger point. Address that, please.

People are complex, get over it.

They're actually fairly predictable, in that they behave in similar ways depending on the situation. Get over it.

You're the expert. You tell me.

Really?

Really?

Oh! So primitive man decided to extend scriptures. What? Was is like producing a second edition, where he included the complexities of specifically what to eat, how to prepare it, when to prepare it, and the reason one goes to that length (especially when rats, and rabbits aren't on the menu). At what point in our evolutionary past did we decide that the sun is millions of miles away, and there are other planets, and we reside in a universe. Was this in the third edition?

What the hell are you talking about?

You're going to have to explain your understanding of religion for me so that I can have some idea of what you're trying to say. Without some frame of reference, this just looks like gibberish. "Extend scriptures?" WTF is that even supposed to mean? Are you operating under the assumption that religion began with one book and grew from there? I mean, I have no idea what you're getting at here.

So is it fair to say that citizens of all the countries who decided to murder innocent men, women, and children (not to speak of animals) people of Iraq, are all murderers, the biggest murderer population being the USA?

I'm sorry, your grammar is atrocious. Can you try that again?

It boils down to inference. If there was evidence there would be no debate.
I don't see anyone debate micro-evolution.

There is no debate. There is only propaganda from religious groups who view evolution to be a threat to their faith. And there is no such thing as "micro-evolution."

One can only ''exercise'' religion, to be religious.
''Martail Arts'' in an of itself, like ''religion'', is merely a word, but a martial artist can only be so if they act.
Duh!

Wrong on both counts. One can be a martial artist without ever raising a finger, and one can have religion without practicing it. They aren't being religious, but they can still have religion.

Oh! So now you're a mind-reader?

Show me where I made that posit?

Sigh...

I see religion as an extention of politics

Sometimes I wonder if you enjoy having your argument blow up in your face.

So what if you can point to these things?
That has nothing to do with religion itself.
One more time with feeling..... man is corrosive, period.

Of course it has to do with the religion itself. If the foundational text says "Kill unbelievers," and then its adherents kill unbelievers, that has everything to do with the religion itself.

Thanks for a completely pointless statement.

Translation: "I don't have a good answer, so I'll just trollface."

I've given loads of definitionss of religion, even offering you a link, which you just explained away.
I don't think you really want to discuss anything.

The definitions you offer are either vague or flat-out incorrect. So far you've called religion an act--which it isn't--and that's about it. Your alternative has to actually be valid, Jan.

I must say the Catholic institute has been very successful in creating atheists.

Is it trolling or ignorance that caused you to miss the part where I said "But by then I already knew I didn't believe in it?" And anywhere, there was nothing negative about my experience at either Catholic school. I really enjoyed both of them, and made some great friends with whom I still have contact. You're looking for some watershed moment that made me turn away from faith, but it never happened. I wasn't indoctrinated, and I"m not weak-minded, so I never had it to begin with.

I've elaborated lots of times, but you just make some stupid about me, or explain it away.

You never elaborate on it. Your evasiveness and vagueness is one of your hallmarks, Jan. Though I don't doubt I'd be able to explain away whatever nonsensical ridiculousness you'd pull out of your ass. It's just that you never give me a chance to do that.

It depends who is reading the book. God is the origin of everything, you don't believe, but others do. So God explains (BG) how He is the origin of everything. So obviously you're going to get that information, but that isn't the point.

Here you go again, moving the goalposts. You said originally that "You see scriptures as some kind of document that contains information about the material world, but that's not what it is." I said it absolutely is a document (a serious of documents) containing information about the material world, and your response is that it is, that isn't the point. Why is it so hard to get you to stick to the point?

Though I will say that the material world is the focus in any holy text. For all of the information the Bible gives, for example, about preparing slaves for sale and preparing goats for sacrifice, there's scarcely anything written about the reward.

Yeah! That's what religion is, isn't it?

It's a part of it, yes.

Yeah! That IS Islam, isn't it

It's a part of it, yes.

Good question, and the point of my praise is that, you are an individual. You cannot speak for everyone as everyones
circumstances are abslolutely unique.

They're not, though, which is why we can make accurate predictions based on certain criteria. For example, I can guess your religion with startling accuracy based on nothing more than your place of birth.

Look at this map. Nothing random about those colors. You sure you still want to assert that each individual comes to religion based on their "absolutely unique" circumstances? Or are you willing to admit that there's a pattern here?

Statistically speaking, would you say that the west is responsible for murdering more people, than the
whole of the mid east put together, in the last 200 years?

Statistically-speaking? You mean per-capita? I have no idea. Do you? I can tell you this much: There are less people living today in the entire middle east region than there are in the United States alone. You're not exactly comparing like with like. And anyway, what's your point?

Really?

Yes. I suggest you read the Quran sometime, it's a very troubling book.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes. I suggest you read the Quran sometime, it's a very troubling book.

On the contrary, I am quite sure that you have never taken the trouble to read it (aside from a few choice selections gleaned from atheist hate sites) ... much less engaged in a discussion with someone about it in the spirit of other than reinforcing your preconceived notions of hatred and ignorance
:shrug:

 

[Gremmie]

On the contrary, I am quite sure that you have never taken the trouble to read it (aside from a few choice selections gleaned from atheist hate sites) ... much less engaged in a discussion with someone about it in the spirit of other than reinforcing your preconceived notions of hatred and ignorance
:shrug:

Are you saying that you are well versed in the Qur'an? Maybe we can discuss it sometime. No, I'm not Islamic. But, I do like to read EVERYTHING.

BTW, love the "shrug" emote that you always use.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Are you suggesting that the sole purpose of Christianity is to explain where lightning comes from?

What part of ''isn't it? suggests that?

There I go again, assuming you're familiar with the topic we're discussing! When will I ever learn?

Okay, explain why ''Christianity encourages blood sacrifice''.

Okay, just to stay within one faith: Judaism. Yahweh intervenes in the affairs of Man, and carves commandments (ie Ethical codes) into stone tablets.

Your move, Mr. Fischer.

He didn't intervene in the ''affairs of Man'', he interacted with Moses, and those particular people. As far as I know, other nations and communities of the world weren't affected.

Secondly, Yahweh's instruction were commands, not ideas.

Thirdly, they aren't ethical codes.

Checkmate.

Everyone says that during an election. I've been hearing "I'll take the lesser of two evils" since I was a kid. But in reality, plenty of people vote party line just because they're indoctrinated into believing that their party is what's best for them, regardless of the details.

What is this ''reality'' that you speak of? Can you demonstrate it.

And at any rate, you're just trying to distract from the larger point. Address that, please.

The point is that religion does not make anybody do anything. They may get their ideas from a scripture, or a particular religious movement, but religion, or scripture cannot make anybody do anything against their will. If that was the case, then with the amount of religious people in the world, the brutality would almost rival Stalins gig.

They're actually fairly predictable, in that they behave in similar ways depending on the situation. Get over it.

Actually human beings are complex.

What the hell are you talking about?

You're going to have to explain your understanding of religion for me so that I can have some idea of what you're trying to say. Without some frame of reference, this just looks like gibberish. "Extend scriptures?" WTF is that even supposed to mean? Are you operating under the assumption that religion began with one book and grew from there? I mean, I have no idea what you're getting at here.

I've linked you a definition of religion which i regard as a good set of explanations,in whichh which this complex structure, found only in complex (human) societies, and practised by (complex) human beings, at least 5 times.
Deal with it then get back to me.

I'm sorry, your grammar is atrocious. Can you try that again?

It's not so ''atrocious'' that you cannot understand it, so deal with it.

There is no debate. There is only propaganda from religious groups who view evolution to be a threat to their faith. And there is no such thing as "micro-evolution."

Wrong. There is a debate. Did man come from goo without the aid of intelligence, or did intelligence play a role in the structure of living things.

Microevolution.

Wrong on both counts. One can be a martial artist without ever raising a finger, and one can have religion without practicing it. They aren't being religious, but they can still have religion.

I'll ignore the religion part of this statement, because you don't know what religion is. But I'm curious as to how one can practise martial arts without moving (I suspect that's what is meant by ''without ever raising a finger'').

There are a few non-theistic religions, but you aren't talking about those. You're trying to posit that "religion" is just another word for political thought or theory, which is incorrect.

Sigh...
Sometimes I wonder if you enjoy having your argument blow up in your face.

Now please explain to me how seeing religion as an extension of politics simply because it is a human affair, is an attempt to posit that religion is just another word political thought or theory?

Did you comprehend...

1. what I acutally said
2. what you actually said.

Of course it has to do with the religion itself. If the foundational text says "Kill unbelievers," and then its adherents kill unbelievers, that has everything to do with the religion itself.

Really?
Please show me?

Translation: "I don't have a good answer, so I'll just trollface."

Not trolling at all. I don't need to, as your statement said absolutely nothing aside from telling me that there was evidence there, and no need to believe.

What is amusing, is that you cannot show the evidence. The only ones who can actually see the evidence, are those who believe it to be true, or believe that evolutionary scientists transcend the limitation of us mere humans. It is entirely based on faith, and you refuse to accept it. That's what's amusing

The definitions you offer are either vague or flat-out incorrect. So far you've called religion an act--which it isn't--and that's about it. Your alternative has to actually be valid, Jan.

You mean like in the case of goo to man, I have to be predisposed to your idea of what religion is, to be valid?

Is it trolling or ignorance that caused you to miss the part where I said "But by then I already knew I didn't believe in it?"

It really wasn't about you. Sorry. It's just an observational thought.

You never elaborate on it. Your evasiveness and vagueness is one of your hallmarks, Jan.

Of course I elaborate on it. You just don't see it, because I'm not predisposed to your idea of what religion is. You're waiting for the time when I say something that you can relate to, so that you can reel off your programmed spiel.

It's almost as if you've been affected by one of those hypnotists who instucts the person in the trance that the number 6 doesn't exist, then act as though the no.6 doesn't exist. It's quite uncanny.

Though I don't doubt I'd be able to explain away whatever nonsensical ridiculousness you'd pull out of your ass. It's just that you never give me a chance to do that.

This statement prove my above point.
I've given you a link, which is close to how I see religion. If you think it's bullshit, then make your points. That is, if you wish
to discuss religion with me. Otherwise you really have nothing, other than new atheist dogma.

Here you go again, moving the goalposts. You said originally that "You see scriptures as some kind of document that contains information about the material world, but that's not what it is." I said it absolutely is a document (a serious of documents) containing information about the material world, and your response is that it is, that isn't the point. Why is it so hard to get you to stick to the point?

Scriptures are serious documents, yes.
They (some) contain information as to how God manifests the material world, yes.
Is the sole purpose of scriptures, to tell how God manifests the material world, no.


QUOTE]Statistically-speaking? You mean per-capita? I have no idea. Do you? I can tell you this much: There are less people living today in the entire middle east region than there are in the United States alone. You're not exactly comparing like with like. And anyway, what's your point? [/QUOTE]


I'm confident that you understand what I mean, and where I'm going with this.
Spousal abuse, is a serious problem in the west, the place (as you put it) that finally taught the barbarous muslims how to become less abusive.

If that scriptoral injunction became the law, in the west, the endemic problem could well see a reversal.

There are limits to how a man can chastise or beat his wife. Whereas in developed western societies, there are no limits, only the law. And while this may seem barbaric, it actually prevents the ridiculous level of abuse that we take for granted in the west.

Yes. I suggest you read the Quran sometime, it's a very troubling book.

I have read the Qur'an, and I disagree with you.
Having read your posts, I'm inclined to think you are very troubled guy.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

On the contrary, I am quite sure that you have never taken the trouble to read it (aside from a few choice selections gleaned from atheist hate sites) ... much less engaged in a discussion with someone about it in the spirit of other than reinforcing your preconceived notions of hatred and ignorance
:shrug:

I've read it. Cover to cover. It has problems. It doesn't need to be guiding society in toto. Neither does the Talmud or Bible for that matter. I believe this is the point of the thread.

 

[GeoffP]

And my vote, for all concerned, was "Restrict it". Too fucking right, restrict religion. I'm happy you found your faith, whoever you are. That's great. But your right of expression ends with you. You don't get to repress women, or homosexuals, or anyone who doesn't believe as you do, because your magic book says so. There's no greater society to be had by your hatred, fear and bigotry/racism. We don't need your sick prejudices, thanks.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,



What part of ''isn't it? suggests that?

Um...the "isn't it?" part? Asking that suggests you were under the impression that it was.

Okay, explain why ''Christianity encourages blood sacrifice''.

Well, Christians celebrate a very significant human sacrifice every year. It's actually Judaism that still demands sacrifices of the flesh be made.

He didn't intervene in the ''affairs of Man'', he interacted with Moses, and those particular people. As far as I know, other nations and communities of the world weren't affected.

Moses "and those particular people" were men, and the desert god of war intervened for the stated purpose of changing their ways. This is "intervening in the affairs of Man."

Secondly, Yahweh's instruction were commands, not ideas.

Thirdly, they aren't ethical codes.

You're attempting to be pedantic and failing thanks to your limited grasp on the language. In other words, your pawn don't move that way, bro.

What is this ''reality'' that you speak of? Can you demonstrate it.

I just told you what the reality was. And I've already explained their line of thinking. If you need to see an example in the lab, go read some posts in the Politics subforum.

The point is that religion does not make anybody do anything. They may get their ideas from a scripture, or a particular religious movement, but religion, or scripture cannot make anybody do anything against their will. If that was the case, then with the amount of religious people in the world, the brutality would almost rival Stalins gig.

You're getting straw all over the place, Jan. No one said religion made people do things against their will. All anyone ever said was that religion gives people inspiration and motivation to do bad things.

Actually human beings are complex.

Compelling rebuttal.

Scientist 1: What are you findings?
Scientist 2: Human beings are complex, sir.
Scientist 1: And what is your evidence for such a claim?
Scientist 2: Because I said so. Get over it.

Really compelling.

I've linked you a definition of religion which i regard as a good set of explanations,in whichh which this complex structure, found only in complex (human) societies, and practised by (complex) human beings, at least 5 times.
Deal with it then get back to me.

This is a giant non-sequitur. What does this have to do with what you wrote before? You said man "extended scripture;" what did you mean by that?

Stay on topic, Jan.

It's not so ''atrocious'' that you cannot understand it, so deal with it.

Actually it is. That's why I asked you to try again. So, please, clean up your grammar and try again.

Wrong. There is a debate. Did man come from goo without the aid of intelligence, or did intelligence play a role in the structure of living things.

Certainly not in the scientific community, there isn't. And the only debate in the public sphere of any significance is between far-right religious propagandists attempting to sneak creation mythology into public school textbooks under the guise of biological science, and the scientists/philosophers/secularists showing the movement for what it really is.

What I find stunning here, though, is that you seem to now accept the so-called "goo-to-man theory," just with a creator guiding the process. Am I to take it that your only problem with this theory is that no one has posited a god as its cause? Because before you just seemed to roll your eyes at the theory altogether. Not that it's important, given that you have no knowledge of evolution whatsoever, but

Microevolution.

But you understand that the terms are superficial, and refer to the same process, correct? There is no functional difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

I'll ignore the religion part of this statement, because you don't know what religion is. But I'm curious as to how one can practise martial arts without moving (I suspect that's what is meant by ''without ever raising a finger'').

You'll ignore the religion part of this statement because you have no answer for it, and you're nothing if not evasive (though I guess it could be also said you're also ill-informed and uneducated on the topics you so often discuss). And you're again attempting to move the goalposts. I never said one could practice martial arts without moving, I said one could be a martial artist without moving. Just as one can be a Christian without going to church or taking mass or oppressing homosexuals.

Now please explain to me how seeing religion as an extension of politics simply because it is a human affair, is an attempt to posit that religion is just another word political thought or theory?

The answer is self-explanatory. You've just repeated your own assertion.

Did you comprehend...

1. what I acutally said
2. what you actually said.

Yep. Now, am I sure what you said is what actually meant? No. Your communication skills are poor, and the frequency with which you accuse others of failing to comprehend something you've said is proof of that. It could very well be that you mean something completely different, but this is the best you can do with words. Unfortunately, I can only go by what you write. I have in the past attempted to parse the meaning from your clumsy posts by asking questions and attempting to force some clarity out of you, but you respond by evading, as usual, so I've given up on that. If you aren't being clear about what you mean, it's your own fault.

Really?
Please show me?

You're asking me to give you examples of foundational texts giving a mandate to kill unbelievers? And you wonder why I believe you are lying when you say you've read these books?

There are too many to list, but just taking one example from each, Sura 9:5 in the Quran states:

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush." ​

Hadith 19:4294:

Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war.​

Deuteronomy 17:

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.​

Matthew 15:3-9

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

Luke 19:27 {Bonus Biblical Death-Mandate!}

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.​

Shall I go on, or can you now admit that the foundational texts of the monotheistic faiths give explicit commands to kill?

Not trolling at all. I don't need to, as your statement said absolutely nothing aside from telling me that there was evidence there, and no need to believe.

The evidence has been shown to you. In this very thread, it has been shown to you.

What is amusing, is that you cannot show the evidence. The only ones who can actually see the evidence, are those who believe it to be true, or believe that evolutionary scientists transcend the limitation of us mere humans. It is entirely based on faith, and you refuse to accept it. That's what's amusing

What's amusing, or maybe just sad, is that you've been shown the evidence and either aren't intelligent enough to understand it, or aren't honest enough to accept it. You called them "cartoon pictures" and refused to follow the links. That's either stunning ignorance or a lack of integrity on par with the worst of Sciforums' posters.

You mean like in the case of goo to man, I have to be predisposed to your idea of what religion is, to be valid?

Nothing like that at all, actually. Acceptance of evolution is based on evidence. Acceptance of religion is based on faith.

It really wasn't about you. Sorry. It's just an observational thought.

So it was trolling, then.

Of course I elaborate on it.

Then do it!

You just don't see it, because I'm not predisposed to your idea of what religion is. You're waiting for the time when I say something that you can relate to, so that you can reel off your programmed spiel.

Oh, so now you're saying you already have? How about you bring this blind man to the light, then? Please, show me where you've elaborated on this idea.

It's almost as if you've been affected by one of those hypnotists who instucts the person in the trance that the number 6 doesn't exist, then act as though the no.6 doesn't exist. It's quite uncanny.

...Says Jan to the mirror...

This statement prove my above point.

Um, no. I'm just saying that given my experience with you, I have no doubt that whatever you do say will be ignorant, unscientific hogwash. Of course, it wouldn't even be that, because you at least have to have memorized this rote nonsense from the anti-evolution websites that churn out all these "science skeptics," and you haven't even done that. You literally have no strategic depth on this--or any other, from what I glean--subject. You have a few talking points, and the rest is evasion such as "Really?", "Isn't it?", "What is this _____ you speak of?", "Show me," "Prove it," "Do you comprehend?", and a dozen other empty words and phrases you use to avoid having a meaningful discussion. How the administration here at Sci has allowed you to continue trolling unchecked is absolutely mind-blowing.

But I'm at least willing to let you go on and spew that nonsense, in the hopes that you'll surprise me and say something of value. Or perhaps we'll uncover some honest and fundamental misunderstanding, and correct it so you don't have to keep embarrassing yourself like this. But you won't, because you can't. You do this to get a rise out of people, nothing more. More fool me for taking the bait.

I've given you a link, which is close to how I see religion. If you think it's bullshit, then make your points. That is, if you wish
to discuss religion with me. Otherwise you really have nothing, other than new atheist dogma.

I've attempted to discuss religion with you, and whenever I try to engage you, you dodge the questions.

Scriptures are serious documents, yes.
They (some) contain information as to how God manifests the material world, yes.
Is the sole purpose of scriptures, to tell how God manifests the material world, no.

Again, strawman. I never said it was.

I'm confident that you understand what I mean, and where I'm going with this.
Spousal abuse, is a serious problem in the west, the place (as you put it) that finally taught the barbarous muslims how to become less abusive.

If that scriptoral injunction became the law, in the west, the endemic problem could well see a reversal.

There are limits as to how a man by chastise or beat his wife. Whereas in developed western societies, there are no limits, only the law. And while this may seem barbaric, it actually prevents the ridiculous level of abuse that we take for granted in the west.

Well, for one, there is no limit. The Quran simply says a man may beat his wife for rebelling. It says "beat her." It does not say "beat her lightly," it does not say "beat her only on Tuesday," it does not say "beat her with a toothbrush." It does not impose a limit on how severely she may be beaten. What it does do is mandate those beatings.

And just to blow your ridiculous theory out of the water, where do you think a woman is treated better: New York, or Tehran?

I have read the Qur'an, and I disagree with you.

Liar. You've never even seen a Quran, let alone read one.

Having read your posts, I'm inclined to think you are very troubled guy.

And having read your posts, I'm inclined to think you probably had to look up the proper spelling of "inclined."

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, I am quite sure that you have never taken the trouble to read it (aside from a few choice selections gleaned from atheist hate sites) ... much less engaged in a discussion with someone about it in the spirit of other than reinforcing your preconceived notions of hatred and ignorance
:shrug:

It would actually be impossible for him to read it, unless he knows Arabic.

 

[superstring01]

Luke 19:27 {Bonus Biblical Death-Mandate!}

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Shall I go on, or can you now admit that the foundational texts of the monotheistic faiths give explicit commands to kill?

To be fair the verse Luke 19:27 is taken a bit out of context.

I'm a recovering Christian, raised in a VERY religious household and sent to a very religious southern Baptist private school. I still can rattle off bullshit, songs, creeds and verses that I was forced to memorize as a lad as part of the brainwashing education process.

Believe me, I hate--HATE--it when Christians parrot that line to me. "OH, you took it out of context". Like, sure--Elisha calling for FORTY-TWO children to be killed and god sending a female bear to slaughter them. That's all "taken out of context". Right. Yeah. Fuck you. Your religion and your make-believe god are disgusting.

That said, this specific verse really was taken out of the larger context of Luke 19 which is part of a parable that Jesus was telling. If you read all of Luke 19, you get a better picture.

~String

 

[James R]

Wrong. There is a debate. Did man come from goo without the aid of intelligence, or did intelligence play a role in the structure of living things.

Microevolution.

There's essentially no debate among scientists about the fact of evolution. It is established about as well as the theory of gravity.

I should perhaps ask at this point what you envisage as "goo", too, since you seem fond of that term. What is "goo", Jan? It seems to me to be quite probable that most of your own body is composed of the very "goo" you're disparaging.

What is amusing, is that you cannot show the evidence. The only ones who can actually see the evidence, are those who believe it to be true, or believe that evolutionary scientists transcend the limitation of us mere humans. It is entirely based on faith, and you refuse to accept it. That's what's amusing

Knowing as little as you do about evolution, you're really in no position to make statements such as this.

Once you've gained a least a minimal education on the subject, your opinions on the matter might be taken seriously by somebody with a similar grounding in the subject.

 

[superstring01]

One wonders why all these PhD level scientists, physicists, microbiologists, biochemists and cosmologists all know that evolution is true to the tune of something like 99%, yet the majority of people declaring evolution to be untrue are the least educated most religiously stilted individuals in society.

Yes, it's more likely that a magical god created the universe and has been pulling the puppet strings from behind the scenes all along!

~String

 

[GeoffP]

Abducted by E.T.'s as a child, experimented on by the CIA via LSD, DMT etc. in college, and subsequently received three brain surgeries in adulthood barely surviving with my life. .

Pssht. I had to put up with Sam for over three years.

One wonders why all these PhD level scientists, physicists, microbiologists, biochemists and cosmologists all know that evolution is true to the tune of something like 99%, yet the majority of people declaring evolution to be untrue are the least educated most religiously stilted individuals in society.

Yes, it's more likely that a magical god created the universe and has been pulling the puppet strings from behind the scenes all along!

~String

If you note from that theistic evolution thread, Jan Ardena presents a link to a series of peer-reviewed ID articles. The first, by Kuhn, cites a 99% support among natural scientists and a surprising 78% support among MDs. Fully 22% of MDs either don't support evolution or don't know. It's possible that MDs, while intelligent people, simply don't share the training mindset through exhaustive investigation and example that PhDs get regarding evolution/speciation. Alternatively, there might be large-scale migration from very religious countries into MD programs in the United States. Hard to say which: but it's possible for presumably intelligent people to go for the malarkey of ID. Perhaps it's that it fulfills the superstitious need to respect some indefinable supernatural, while sounding prima facie not like total crap. You get to have your cake and eat it too, if you're willing.

 

[superstring01]

Pssht. I had to put up with Sam for over three years.



If you note from that theistic evolution thread, Jan Ardena presents a link to a series of peer-reviewed ID articles. The first, by Kuhn, cites a 99% support among natural scientists and a surprising 78% support among MDs. Fully 22% of MDs either don't support evolution or don't know. It's possible that MDs, while intelligent people, simply don't share the training mindset through exhaustive investigation and example that PhDs get regarding evolution/speciation. Alternatively, there might be large-scale migration from very religious countries into MD programs in the United States. Hard to say which: but it's possible for presumably intelligent people to go for the malarkey of ID. Perhaps it's that it fulfills the superstitious need to respect some indefinable supernatural, while sounding prima facie not like total crap. You get to have your cake and eat it too, if you're willing.

I don't doubt the brilliance of MD's but the fact is, med schools typically have lower standards of education in evolutionary biology for graduation. IT's not that it's not there, it's just that you can get by with a lot less. Scientifically minded theists will therefore gravitate to those programs, nonetheless.

Though, thankfully it's still at 78% who are awake and aware of the truth.

~String

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Knowing as little as you do about evolution, you're really in no position to make statements such as this.

Once you've gained a least a minimal education on the subject, your opinions on the matter might be taken seriously by somebody with a similar grounding in the subject.

James, there's no empiracal evidence that every living being came from goo, the so called evidence is based on conjecture and
supposition. That's fair enough, but don't knock me for seeing it the way I do, because that is the reality of what it is.
All you can do is show me pictures placed in a specific order then say here is the proof.
Because I don't accept, you accuse not knowing it. You say that about anybody who disagrees with this idea, so your decent toward me has absolutely no effect.

The Emporer is strark-bollocked-naked, as far as I can see.

jan.