Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

[superluminal]

*kowtow*

No, no! It is I who *kowtow*!

 

[lightgigantic]

Again, I hadn't even mentioned religion. I simply pointed out that you can believe in whatever you want to as long as you provide evidence for it's existence when you try and promote it as real to everyone else. How many times am I going to have to say this before you pay attention?

(sigh) - okay then refresh my memory - What is your perspective of religion and how has it developed to take its current form of existence in society?

Can we use this definition of religion .......
1 the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them:
or even this definition ......
[C] one of the systems of faith that are based on the belief in the existence of a particular god or gods:
as opposed to this one?
[sing.] a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life:

Religion is a group of people that share the same beliefs, (specifically pertaining to supernatural entities), science is a principal aimed at gaining knowledge of the world and universe. Both are "made up", in that they are human things, but both are "real" in that they exist. You claimed that I think "religion is made up and science is real". Needless to say, your statement is nonsensical bollocks, (bollocks is a phrase often used to indicate that something is nonsense).

Actually what we have to address before we get to evidence is the nature of reality - otherwise there is no point bringing up evidence - for instance if I am a rocket scientist and produce a document of my findings (which is evidence according to the ontology of rocket scientists), full of equations and squiggles, to a layman, he will not accept that as evidence because he has a different notion of reality- and that is why I am trying to get you to examine the general principles you apply to determine that something is real before jumping into fields of evidence -
For instance compare your above statement about denying that religion was made up and compare it to the one posted below

But I didn't do any such thing. I didn't even mention religion. I gave a perspective of why early people would believe in powerful entities - I didn't say anything was more or less real than anything else, (especially given that religion does exist - ergo, is real), and merely stated that if a person expects others to believe in the space daddy they do, that they provide evidence.

Now this perspective on why people would believe in powerful enitites (perhaps now you can understand why i stand to be forgiven for thinking you were talking about religion) - How was this perspective developed? What general principles did you apply to establish it as a plausible reality? Obviously you seem to give more creedence to that perspective? Why? What general principles did you apply to determine that that perspective is more qualified than any other perspective offered?

You can't even get what I said "correct", how can you expect to get anything else "correct"?

Yes - trying to work out exactly what you are saying about religion (oops I just forgot - its about how early people came to believe in powerful entities) is quite difficult.

 

[wesmorris]

No, no! It is I who *kowtow*!

IMO, the taoist writings I generally see quoted work with this comprehension of the subject of tao. For instance, the stuff DD quoted above seems to fit perfectly, but with a mystic's slant. Would you agree?

 

[SnakeLord]

(sigh) - okay then refresh my memory

(double sigh) - okay then: you can believe in whatever you want to, but if you want to try and promote it as being real, you need to provide some evidence.

What is your perspective of religion and how has it developed to take its current form of existence in society?

Uh.. a collection of people with the same beliefs came together either by choice or force and started singing songs while a man in a collar gives a blow job to a 10 year old.

Can we use this definition of religion ......

You can do whatever you want. It's most likely you're going to provide my answers and conclusions for me anyway.

Actually what we have to address before we get to evidence is the nature of reality

Reality = that which exists.

Don't start with some philosophical crap about living in the matrix or "how do you know that tree is really there?".

In saying that, if you want to promote something as being real, (existing), then provide some evidence.

otherwise there is no point bringing up evidence

You religious people always say that. Evidence? Pfft.. who cares.

for instance if I am a rocket scientist and produce a document of my findings (which is evidence according to the ontology of rocket scientists), full of equations and squiggles, to a layman, he will not accept that as evidence because he has a different notion of reality

It's nothing to do with a "different notion of reality", but that he doesn't understand what the squiggles mean. Give him some education and he will.

and that is why I am trying to get you to examine the general principles you apply to determine that something is real before jumping into fields of evidence -

But the evidence determines whether something is real, (exists), or not and so you can't really avoid it, (well, the religious can and must).

Now this perspective on why people would believe in powerful enitites (perhaps now you can understand why i stand to be forgiven for thinking you were talking about religion)

No, you're not forgiven - on the basis that I hadn't even mentioned these people or why they'd believe in powerful entities before you started with your abstraction crap. All I said was that you need to provide evidence if you want to promote something as being real, (existing).

How was this perspective developed? What general principles did you apply to establish it as a plausible reality?

Evidence. But why explain when you've already discarded evidence as being of any value?

Obviously you seem to give more creedence to that perspective? Why?

because of the evidence. While sure, the sun might actually be a living, omnipotent being - that's not what the evidence shows.

What general principles did you apply to determine that that perspective is more qualified than any other perspective offered?

Quality of evidence.

Yes - trying to work out exactly what you are saying about religion (oops I just forgot - its about how early people came to believe in powerful entities) is quite difficult.

*Imitating light minimal* "Well, everyone else seemed to understand it. Read it again and then respond.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snake man - seems like its a common phenomena with a class of fanatic (whether they are religious or atheistic) - the moment you start to examine the issue of atheism/religion in terms of perceiving reality they get all aggressive and slide into insult and bad language

- I mean come on -

"Uh.. a collection of people with the same beliefs came together either by choice or force and started singing songs while a man in a collar gives a blow job to a 10 year old."

If that's your definition of religion I guess I must have mistaken you for an intelligent person (or you are posting while drunk - which amounts to the same conclusion)

 

[SnakeLord]

Snake man - seems like its a common phenomena with a class of fanatic (whether they are religious or atheistic) - the moment you start to examine the issue of atheism/religion in terms of perceiving reality they get all aggressive and slide into insult and bad language

I didn't insult you, wasn't specifically aggressive and kept my bad language to a minimum. What bothers me is that ten times now I have had to point out what I originally said that made you waffle on about something unrelated to what I said - while having to listen to you telling me what I do or do not think, and while having to put up with all the snide comments that imo are worse than the occasional swear word. Of course I refer to the; "(sigh)...", "oops.." etc.

If that's your definition of religion I guess I must have mistaken you for an intelligent person

Giving an amusing definition of religion has no bearing on intelligence. Of course people all have a different sense of humour, and some don't have any at all.

Anyway, you've already provided a suitable definition of religion, and I said you're free to use that definition. It is of no consequence to me, because, (for the last time hopefully), I wasn't talking about religions, whether they're "real" or not, or coca cola abstractions.