What makes religion okay?

[SnakeLord]

has the question officially drifted off why the worship of god is not on par with the worship of two scorpions?

A rather pathetic way to avoid answering a question - one that was ultimately asked right at the start of this thread. While you clearly didn't understand what was being asked, you have no real excuse given that it has since been explained to you.

Observe if you will:

"..it's not a question of those people's morals, it's a question of why it is more rational to believe in one hypothetical entity than another."

Your answer, although it wasn't what was asked, involved moral and social systems. I have since asked you quite a few times what moral or social systems have to do with the actual belief and the rationality or irrationality of it. These scorpion god worshippers might be very moral indeed, it's not an argument to the rationality of their belief in that scorpion god.

Get a clue.

(the only thing I see with lenny is activity books for kids on st patricks day)

The only thing I see with Vishnu etc are images of ugly blue people. You only see what you see because you're not looking further. Why would you honestly expect to see more or indeed even understand it given that you're unqualified?

I do find it intriguing how you consistently adopt double standards. It's really quite telling.

if you are an atheist pretending to believe in a leprechaun on the strength of the book of lenny, it certainly is rhetorical

At least this time you added the 'if' instead of smply making bold claims. Needless to say I am not pretending.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

(the only thing I see with lenny is activity books for kids on st patricks day)
”
The only thing I see with Vishnu etc are images of ugly blue people. You only see what you see because you're not looking further. Why would you honestly expect to see more or indeed even understand it given that you're unqualified?

I do find it intriguing how you consistently adopt double standards. It's really quite telling.

at least with vishnu one can easily and objectively indicate real temples, real scriptures, real commentaries on those scriptures, real philosophical conclusions drawn from those conclusions, real social and moral systems drawn up as a result of those conclusions etc etc
with lenny, all you have to go with is kids activities on st. Patricks day
:shrug:

“
if you are an atheist pretending to believe in a leprechaun on the strength of the book of lenny, it certainly is rhetorical
”
At least this time you added the 'if' instead of smply making bold claims. Needless to say I am not pretending.

Then I guess you face the difficulty of any person who is using sciforums as a medium for presenting new claims (everyone will just tar you with BS)- better that you bear your claims on the world at large and get back to us when your claims can be indicated as easily and objectively as vishnu

 

[SnakeLord]

at least with vishnu one can easily and objectively indicate real temples, real scriptures, real commentaries on those scriptures, real philosophical conclusions drawn from those conclusions, real social and moral systems drawn up as a result of those conclusions etc etc

Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp).

Scientology has 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based on discussion of those texts, moral systems and social systems and yet I'm sure you would be on the list of people stating that belief in the great Xenu or the evil Makabians is an irrational one. And yes, that's even though I'm sure you would also give the stated aim of Scientology due respect:

"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology"

So, with regards to Lenny. Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems is entirely irrelevant to the claimed existence of Lenny.

Basically you are now making absolute statements of denial to something on the basis that you have not perceived it and are not aware of existing texts, followers or 'temples' - which was my point.

Then I guess you face the difficulty of any person who is using sciforums as a medium for presenting new claims

No, I shall merely take the lg stance and tell them they're unqualified so they can't say shit. The only time they can ever complain is when.. amusingly enough.. they have direct perception of this entity I claim exists.

That has been your whole argument in the time you have been here. You of all people have to appreciate it.

claims can be indicated as easily and objectively as vishnu

There is your continual error once more. vishnu, (no capitals for your god? I am surprised), cannot be indicated easily or objectively. What you can indicate easily is that people believe in such an entity and make temples, write texts and discuss issues relating to their belief in that entity.

 

[Myles]

L.G.

Please consider the following!

Negarive absolutes conjoined with positive indications that one is operating outside the limits , corrupted or otherwise, of the scope of one's natural inclination, having regard to the fact that one may have a natural disposition to distort one's reality without affecting absolute reality which lies in the province of the ethereal yesness of the all, may indicate, without predjudice to that which is known a priori, that some things can be shown to be elemental by their very nature ,which permits of no distortion of the inner reality of that elemental nature which lies at the centre of and speaks for all phenomena sub specie aeternis which may be known by a finite mind which has divested itself of every trace of " I-ness" in consequence of which it communes in realms unknown to those who cling to a material identity whatsoever form it may take in the ultimate scheme of things material and spiritual. That is true knowledge.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
at least with vishnu one can easily and objectively indicate real temples, real scriptures, real commentaries on those scriptures, real philosophical conclusions drawn from those conclusions, real social and moral systems drawn up as a result of those conclusions etc etc
”
Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp).

it does however establish it as something distinct from lenny the leprechaunism

Scientology has 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based on discussion of those texts, moral systems and social systems and yet I'm sure you would be on the list of people stating that belief in the great Xenu or the evil Makabians is an irrational one. And yes, that's even though I'm sure you would also give the stated aim of Scientology due respect:

"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology"

what do you, as a lenny the leprechaunist, care for scientology?
(or are you, as a cynical atheist, trying to replace one rhetorical argument for another?)

So, with regards to Lenny. Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems is entirely irrelevant to the claimed existence of Lenny.

Basically you are now making absolute statements of denial to something on the basis that you have not perceived it and are not aware of existing texts, followers or 'temples' - which was my point.

actually I would argue that Scientology has a philosophy, albeit not a very technical one (for instance you don't see any great philosophical commentaries on the texts unique to scientology). Due to the weakness of its philosophy, it would be very difficult to describe any social or moral systems that might result from it as enduring.
It seems that the only people interested in scientology texts are other scientologists.
For instance I doubt you could find an array of quotes from sources as diverse as this of persons stating their appreciation of scientology

-Annie Besant
-Albert Einstein
-Mahatma Gandhi
-Dr.Albert Schweizer
- Carl Jung
-Herman Hesse
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
-Rudolph Steiner
-Aldous Huxley

you can however find them appreciating the philosophical contributions of the bhagavad-gita.
(and it doesn't seem practical to categorize them as hindus)

“
Then I guess you face the difficulty of any person who is using sciforums as a medium for presenting new claims
”
No, I shall merely take the lg stance and tell them they're unqualified so they can't say shit. The only time they can ever complain is when.. amusingly enough.. they have direct perception of this entity I claim exists.

I haven't made any absolute statements regarding lenny
I am just pointing out that for as long as the moral, philosophical and social systems of lenny are not even existent (what to speak of enduring) I am not interested, and neither is any other person of at least moderate discrimination.
And as a further point, sciforums is probably not the best medium for trying to establish a new idea as possessive of these things

That has been your whole argument in the time you have been here. You of all people have to appreciate it.

the difference is that I am arguing in reference to pre-existing ideas
my argument doesn't rest solely on my hearsay

“
claims can be indicated as easily and objectively as vishnu
”
There is your continual error once more. vishnu, (no capitals for your god? I am surprised),

its ok
we're only communicating in a discussion forum after all

cannot be indicated easily or objectively. What you can indicate easily is that people believe in such an entity and make temples, write texts and discuss issues relating to their belief in that entity.

by objectively, I mean that vishnu exists as a real object of moral, social and philosophical investigation
I state this to distinguish it from lenny the leprechaun, since he seems to only serve as a real object for the performance of children's activities on St. Patricks day

 

[SnakeLord]

it does however establish it as something distinct from lenny the leprechaunism

Other than it's more commonly heard of and has more believers, no. And while I will grant it those two things they are in actuality completely irrelevant to the point. The point being:

"Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp)"

If you can establish that the belief in the claimed entity is more rational than belief in Lenny or scorpion gods for that matter then we could actually progress. Alas regardless to how many times it is stated you don't seem to be able to understand what is being asked.

No lg, you cannot say belief in a certain entity is more rational than the other because it has moral/social systems and more mentions on paper. I see what your new tactic is, I'll point out the worthlessness of it in a moment.

what do you, as a lenny the leprechaunist, care for scientology?

I would have thought the point was obvious and really doesn't warrant such a pointless and honestly quite childish question. Read it again and get back to me if you can possibly muster something a little more mature.

For instance I doubt you could find an array of quotes from sources as diverse as this of persons stating their appreciation of scientology

-Annie Besant
-Albert Einstein....

An appeal to prestige. Surely you have progressed beyond such nonsense? However, just for you I shall add it to the list of lg fallacies and irrelevancies:

"Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems [or whether famous people like the sound of it] does not have any bearing on the existence of a certain entity, be it Lenny or vishnu".

the difference is that I am arguing in reference to pre-existing ideas
my argument doesn't rest solely on my hearsay

Sure, it rests solely on someone elses hearsay.

its ok
we're only communicating in a discussion forum after all

Sure, I just find it quite interesting that you do not use a capital when writing the name of one of your gods but do use a capital when speaking of St Patrick and of course with that list of "real" people that you just mentioned. Seems Herman Hesse gets more respect than your own god. I can't say I care too much, I just find it interesting.

I state this to distinguish it from lenny the leprechaun, since he seems to only serve as a real object for the performance of children's activities on St. Patricks day

To think that this statement encompasses the history etc of leprechauns is extraordinarily naive. Of course when one is unwilling to be educated, (high school dropout), it is to be expected.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
it does however establish it as something distinct from lenny the leprechaunism
”
Other than it's more commonly heard of and has more believers, no. And while I will grant it those two things they are in actuality completely irrelevant to the point. The point being:

"Alas of course 'real' temples, texts, discussions of texts, conclusions based upon discussions of those texts, moral systems and social systems do not have bearing to the existence of a certain entity, (which you continually fail to grasp)"

If you can establish that the belief in the claimed entity is more rational than belief in Lenny or scorpion gods for that matter then we could actually progress. Alas regardless to how many times it is stated you don't seem to be able to understand what is being asked.

No lg, you cannot say belief in a certain entity is more rational than the other because it has moral/social systems and more mentions on paper. I see what your new tactic is, I'll point out the worthlessness of it in a moment.

depends whether you think things like ethics and philosophy have value

“
what do you, as a lenny the leprechaunist, care for scientology?
”
I would have thought the point was obvious and really doesn't warrant such a pointless and honestly quite childish question.

that was my initial reaction to your rhetorical question

“
For instance I doubt you could find an array of quotes from sources as diverse as this of persons stating their appreciation of scientology

-Annie Besant
-Albert Einstein....
”
An appeal to prestige. Surely you have progressed beyond such nonsense? However, just for you I shall add it to the list of lg fallacies and irrelevancies:

"Whether there are many followers that erect temples, discuss texts, or draw up moral and social systems [or whether famous people like the sound of it] does not have any bearing on the existence of a certain entity, be it Lenny or vishnu".

it does however distinguish an existent and enduring philosophy from a nonexistent (aka lennyism) or less enduring philosophy (scientology)

“
its ok
we're only communicating in a discussion forum after all
”
Sure, I just find it quite interesting that you do not use a capital when writing the name of one of your gods but do use a capital when speaking of St Patrick and of course with that list of "real" people that you just mentioned. Seems Herman Hesse gets more respect than your own god. I can't say I care too much, I just find it interesting.

yes
fascinating

“

I state this to distinguish it from lenny the leprechaun, since he seems to only serve as a real object for the performance of children's activities on St. Patricks day
”
To think that this statement encompasses the history etc of leprechauns is extraordinarily naive. Of course when one is unwilling to be educated, (high school dropout), it is to be expected.

if you have nothing objective to indicate except your hearsay, sciforums cannot help you

 

[Cris]

TW,

Religious Claim: There was a King David and King Solomon.
Reality: There was a King David and King Solomon.

Religious Claim: That a man laying with a women begets a child.
Reality: Men and Women having sex does make babies.

There is two claims right there. Sure they aren;t the big beliefs in any religion, but you did not stipulate that they major beliefs, just beliefs. So shut up already.

Please don't be so naive - the issues are the basis for beliefs concerning the existence of gods and souls, e.g. supernatural components.

There is good reason why religions are also called faiths - the basis of religious beliefs is faith (belief despite the absence of facts). I.e. religions are based on faith not facts.

 

[Cris]

Revolvr,

Indeed, believe me I understand you believe it is all mythology.

Not quite. We just don't have any independent, reliable or verifiable historical support for Christian claims.

If any of the New Testament were true, your faith would collapse like a sneeze on a house of cards.

Doesn't your statement confirm that you know of no way to show the claims are true, otherwise the assertion would not need to be made. I have no faith here to collapse, what I see is Christians unable to prove what they claim.

So just what kind of verification do you need? What is enough? Does everything you believe need to be verified? Are you sure your mother is your mother? Have you verified it?

Whether she is not is irelevant, however, if Christainity were true then it would have signficant consequences for all of mankind. It is not too much to ask those who make such incredible claims to show they are true and not mythological.

 

[TW Scott]

TW,

Please don't be so naive - the issues are the basis for beliefs concerning the existence of gods and souls, e.g. supernatural components.

There is good reason why religions are also called faiths - the basis of religious beliefs is faith (belief despite the absence of facts). I.e. religions are based on faith not facts.

Hey Chris,

You were the moron that claimed that nothing a religion clams is fact. I gave you some facts. I could give you countless more.

Now it doesn't matter if I can prove there is a God. You simply can't claim that you know God doesn't exist. First of all you have less proof than I do. I, at least, have anecdoctal evidence to God's presence. Sure, in the face of solid facts that does not mean much, but you have no solid fact to point to the absence of God.

Now you can be an ass about this or you can admit your original statement wasn't worth the electricity used to power my monitor so I could read it. From there you might start being able to have a credible argument.