Contradictions In Religious Fundamentalism

[curiositykilledthecat]

Heck I saw seasame street when it was still in english.

[twister_girl]

Oh...Emannuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable.Heidigger, Heidigger was a boozey beggar wo was just as sloshed as plato.. David hume could out consume vickenstein and schlegel. Renee decartes was a drunken fart, I drink therefore I am. There's nothing Nistze couldn't teach you about the raising of the wrist. Socrates himself was particularly pissed...

Anybody else know this song. I love Monty Python.

I screwed up a bucnh fo the lyrics, it's been a while.

Well Bruce, I love the Philosopher's Song

[curiositykilledthecat]

We have a winner!!!!

[Bettypooh]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar

Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume

Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine

Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'

'Bout the raising of the wrist.

SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,

On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away;

Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

"Ni!"

[Baby Cammy]

Baby Bethany, a good read is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He was an atheist for most of his life and in the book he goes into much detail on how (for him) Christianity is the only logical solution to humanity's otherwise apparent lack of purpose. He expounds on humanity's subconscious moral code of right and wrong (ie: why do say a thing is "good", how do we even know it's "good"). Stuff like that. Pretty cool. Definitely worth checkin out if you're asking questions.

[Creepymouse]

It is not half so wonderful as ... indistructabilty of matter." T. H. Huxley.

Ironic that this is one of my more favorite choices for evidence (to me) that God does exist. Since matter is (in fact) not indestructible, and is made up of an astronomically greater amount of energy (E=MC^2), whatever or whomever created this vast universe must in fact have nearly limitless energy at his/its disposal.

The bible was written by men (or women), translated into other languages by other men, and further translated etc etc....if you read it litterally you are wasting your time.

If you wrote a book, would you not attempt to protect its contents from undue damage? While I believe He has allowed certain errors in translation as a way to examine us and our faith, I believe He has been protecting the contents from permanent distortion.

If God create the universe he is the most amazing almighty being ever....as such, do you think he'd want you (one of his miniscule creations) worshiping him?

Not in the way that Satan desired it. Since God is the Creator, he is the ONLY one who *deserves* worship. Satan wanted that worship for himself and seduced mankind into serving him instead of the Creator. If you had a really decent father, would you not respect him and love him, since he cared for and raised you? How much more does our Creator deserve our respect and love? That's all that worship entails, our giving Him the only thing he doesn't already own, our love and respect.

Religion was created by man to control man and has killed more people in its name than anything else.

This is true in many ways. You may recognize the phrase 'Religion is a snare and a racket' or not, but its true. The sad thing is, even leaving out the array of other organizations, modern so-called Christianity has utterly failed to follow Christ's example.

"The message of Jesus as I understand it," said Gandhi, "is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole...I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount... I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west."

What I call 'false religion' was at the heart of the building of Babel (later, Babylon) and many of even modern Christendom's teachings incorporate babylonish ideas such as the immortality of the human soul, the three-fold godhead, sacred use of statues and icons, clergy/laity distinction, and many others. You might think of it this way: If a glass of water has even a drop of sewage in it, you would reject that water, correct? Yet countless people overlook equally distasteful beliefs and actions fostered by their 'church'.

Sure, churches have blessed wars and soldiers and even tanks for longer than any of us has been alive, but Christ commanded that we love our neighbors, and even our enemies. The word he used for love was based on principle, that you would want what is best for the other.

You can, and will, believe what you want, that's how God made us with free will. If you want, you can choose to stop breathing, or eating, or attempt to defy gravity by walking off a cliff, but you may meet your end. God doesn't threaten eternal torture (regardless of what some would have you believe.) He is the Source of life. He wants his children to continue living, and live happily. If we choose to ignore his rules, it means our death, as surely as ignoring our bodies' needs. It may be sudden or slow, but eventually 'the wages of sin are death'.

When Adam sinned, he willfully threw away his right to father a world of perfect children who would never die. In a very real way, Adam killed each of his unborn children when he sinned. Christ was born perfect, as a perfect ransom. He allowed himself to be tortured and killed, forsaking his own right to father perfect children, in order to adopt Adam's imperfect offspring.

Men tend to teach the 'commands of men as doctrine'. Men will use any power given them to their benefit, its our nature. 'Man has dominated man, to his injury.' But Christ taught us to give to others, to look out for our neighbors and even those who hate us. Christ never used coercion to win a disciple, because that's not how God works. He didn't stand in the synagogue and emit light and call down fire to prove his identity, though it would have undoubtedly brought many more to follow him, but for the wrong reasons.

As before, I can find where the quotes I used are from, but it is extra time I don't want to spend unless asked to. Suffice it to say, you should be able to tell where I've quoted or paraphrased, and I can find the reference if you want.

[Jimpy]

"The message of Jesus as I understand it," said Gandhi, "is contained in the Sermon on the Mount unadulterated and taken as a whole...I can tell you that in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount... I am speaking of the Christian belief, of Christianity as it is understood in the west."

To break that down using another quote of his:

"I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Ghandi

Just a comment on that: He didn't mean that Christians should be completely like Jesus and shoulder all his burdens and whatnot. He said that in the context of the above quote by Creepymouse. - Which is why I suppose it's better to quote that over the one I posted regardless of simplicity, as it avoids misconception.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Asking ghandi about christianity is like asking your dentist how to fix your transmission. Or it's like asking a Hindu the best place to get a steak.

[Baby Bethany]

Baby Bethany, a good read is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He was an atheist for most of his life and in the book he goes into much detail on how (for him) Christianity is the only logical solution to humanity's otherwise apparent lack of purpose. He expounds on humanity's subconscious moral code of right and wrong (ie: why do say a thing is "good", how do we even know it's "good"). Stuff like that. Pretty cool. Definitely worth checkin out if you're asking questions.

Thanks Cammy!!

Beth

[Parole Diver]

Death Penalty- Well the irony is most people who are against the death penalty are somehow for abortion which is a complete logical falacy. People tend to use the eye for an eye scripture to argue against the death penalty, when in reality Jesus was making light of how corrupt the law of man truly is.(Haammarabi's codes punished the poor while fined the rich)

I am unironically against the death penalty and for abortion and do not use logical fallacies to justify that position.

Why against the death penalty: Innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future. The penalty is not applied equally and it is just barbaric revenge as opposed to keeping the public safe. Since it's more expensive than life in jail I don't see it as in the public interest either, and it also bereaves the loved ones of that convict too.

Early foetuses have no hopes, dreams, desires, fears, experiences, emotions, loves or anything else that makes humans so special. Yeah if not aborted they would have the possibility of obtaining these things and the same argument is often used against contraception, but since they do not have them when aborted, it is irrelevant. The whole thing gets gradually more worrying as the foetus gets older and the brain gets the ability to feel pain but as far as early abortions go its just wiping out some of your own inanimate body cells.

This is far from the state sanctioned killing of a living breathing human, regardless of what that human has done.

I find it amusing that many death penalty advocates are against abortion because of fetal pain when the electric chair, gas chamber and lethal injection are all horribly painful.

Final note, few know what the full title of Origin of the species was, since if they did it would discredit Darwin's motives slightly. The book was titled "Origin of the species and perpetuation of the superior races" The original goal was to use nature as justification for one race ruling over another.

Utter utter rubbish and nonsense.

Firstly because that was never the title, it was for the first 5 editions 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', and then 'The Origin of Species' from the 6th edition. Besides the fact that 'The Origin of Species' is the title of the most recent and updated edition, 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' is far too long for people to refer to repeatedly.

Secondly, races refers to species. Races of cabbage. Races of finch. The word 'race' today has vastly different feelings attached to it today than it did in the mid 1800's, and is used differently.

Thirdly, describing Darwin's goal as 'justifying one race ruling over another' is so ridiculously and evidently inaccurate that it is difficult to appreciate how offensively libellous it is. Quite aside from the fact that Origin makes barely a mention of human evolution, Darwin's correspondence shows that he explicitly rejected the idea of enforced eugenics. I'm not aware of his thoughts regarding the supremacy of once race over another, but unless someone can come up with some evidence of it then I'm going to assume it has just been made up by someone who doesn't like evolution.

As a side point trying to discredit evolution by discrediting Darwin is meaningless, his works may well have been the main contributor to convincing the scientific community that evolution by natural selection is how species came about, but the evidence gathered since then stands up by itself.

[Parole Diver]

To my mind we still have a lot to learn in science, and that's why I feel athiesm is a bit of a condradiction. I accept the atheist view that "there is no proof that God exists" but equally there is no proof that God doesn't exist......this is why I called athiesm a "faith" in my first post. Besides, it depends what you consider "proof". For instance, we still don't know 100% how the universe began or if the universe is everything there is, or if there is something beyond that. And narrowing it down to life on Earth, we still don't know how life began......it may have been an accident, who knows? As Sarah said, it's all subjective. It reminds me of an article I read in a science magazine, about a scientist who was also a man of faith (I think he was Jewish). He said he sees God in a DNA thread.

Since you guys have covered the degrees of agnosticism, it would be appropriate to add the degrees of atheism here. I think negative and positive atheism might be more common but i'll use weak and strong since i'm more familiar with them.

Strong atheism: Agrees with the statement "God certainly does not exist".

Weak atheism: Agrees with the statement "God probably does not exist". That probably can range from "almost certain" to "mmm i guess maybe probably it doesnt"

I think most atheists are the latter category, as its pretty unscientific to say you are 100% sure of something when you don't have proof of it. Atheism hinges on the lack of proof or evidence for or against a God. There is no proof of God, some (including myself) would say that there is no evidence for God, so they don't believe in it. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins would not go so far as to say that Gods lack of existence is certain.

In other words weak atheism is not a contradiction because 'I do not believe in God' is not the same thing as 'I believe there is no God', the difference is very distinct and I think most atheists who have put a reasonable amount of thought into their position are weak atheists, even if they don't know the term.

[Jimpy]

Asking ghandi about christianity is like asking your dentist how to fix your transmission. Or it's like asking a Hindu the best place to get a steak.

Actually his views are far less biased then you would think, and he did study the world’s major religions as a theologian, so he had a grasp on understanding them. :3

[sarah_ab]

I think most atheists are the latter category, as its pretty unscientific to say you are 100% sure of something when you don't have proof of it. Atheism hinges on the lack of proof or evidence for or against a God. There is no proof of God, some (including myself) would say that there is no evidence for God, so they don't believe in it. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins would not go so far as to say that Gods lack of existence is certain.

but of course, you could argue the same is true for those who believe absolutely in a god! its pretty unscientific to say you are 100% of the existance of something when you dont have proof of it.. I mean heck even the justice system is supposedly based on reasonable doubt..

but then again, since when has the belief or disbelief in a god or gods ever been scientific.... sides, nothing can ever be proven 100% true, even in science... you could only stay it is very likely true, but nothing can ever be truely proven.

[Baby Cammy]

No problem Beth. My fiances name is Bethany hehe

[curiositykilledthecat]

What's the saying, you can't prove a negative?

[Parole Diver]

What's the saying, you can't prove a negative?

It might be a saying but any mathematician or philosopher will tell you it's false

[curiositykilledthecat]

And I'll tell them both to shut up and GET A JOB!

FYI, this was a an obscure family guy reference.

[Baby Bethany]

I am unironically against the death penalty and for abortion and do not use logical fallacies to justify that position.

Why against the death penalty: Innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future. The penalty is not applied equally and it is just barbaric revenge as opposed to keeping the public safe. Since it's more expensive than life in jail I don't see it as in the public interest either, and it also bereaves the loved ones of that convict too.

This is far from the state sanctioned killing of a living breathing human, regardless of what that human has done.

I find it amusing that many death penalty advocates are against abortion because of fetal pain when the electric chair, gas chamber and lethal injection are all horribly painful.

I agree 100%, to my mind a Christian supporting the death penalty is both having your cake and eating it. Call it justice if you like, but for me it's cold blooded revenge, nothing more.

Secondly, races refers to species. Races of cabbage. Races of finch. The word 'race' today has vastly different feelings attached to it today than it did in the mid 1800's, and is used differently.

Thirdly, describing Darwin's goal as 'justifying one race ruling over another' is so ridiculously and evidently inaccurate that it is difficult to appreciate how offensively libellous it is. Quite aside from the fact that Origin makes barely a mention of human evolution, Darwin's correspondence shows that he explicitly rejected the idea of enforced eugenics. I'm not aware of his thoughts regarding the supremacy of once race over another, but unless someone can come up with some evidence of it then I'm going to assume it has just been made up by someone who doesn't like evolution.

As a side point trying to discredit evolution by discrediting Darwin is meaningless, his works may well have been the main contributor to convincing the scientific community that evolution by natural selection is how species came about, but the evidence gathered since then stands up by itself.

Correct, Darwin wasn't talking about races of people but races (species) of life. Some people (such has Hitler) have used evolutionary arguments to justify the elimination of people with (what they considered) birth defects, sort of trying to speed up human evolution. But we can't blame Darwin for this.

[Baby Bethany]

but of course, you could argue the same is true for those who believe absolutely in a god! its pretty unscientific to say you are 100% of the existance of something when you dont have proof of it.. I mean heck even the justice system is supposedly based on reasonable doubt..

but then again, since when has the belief or disbelief in a god or gods ever been scientific.... sides, nothing can ever be proven 100% true, even in science... you could only stay it is very likely true, but nothing can ever be truely proven.

That's why a belief in God is an act of faith Sarah, as is a belief in (strong) athiesm.

Beth

[Baby Bethany]

Even atheists like Richard Dawkins would not go so far as to say that Gods lack of existence is certain.

Interestingly, Dawkins doesn't so much have a problem with the idea of a creater, rather the idea of a loving God. He considers the idea of a creater possible, although the sticking point for him (aside from no evidence) is that should a creater exist, then the creater itself must have been created at some point. I've even heard him say he doesn't have a problem with the idea of life on earth being created by another and superior race, but again they themselves must have been created. To me, not only do these theories make Dawkins sound more like an Agnostic than an Athiest, but the theory that a creater must himself have been created seems to assume that the laws of evolution apply throughout the universe, we don't know that this is indeed the case.

Beth

[Baby Bethany]

No problem Beth. My fiances name is Bethany hehe

Funny you should say that...........

[Parole Diver]

To me, not only do these theories make Dawkins sound more like an Agnostic than an Athiest, but the theory that a creater must himself have been created seems to assume that the laws of evolution apply throughout the universe, we don't know that this is indeed the case.

Beth

The agnosticism/atheism terminology thing gets in the way of just about every atheism debate there is haha. Dawkins does say he is technically agnostic in that sense.

Whether evolution applies on other planets is a good question. If we were put here by another species then I would imagine they would also have DNA, implying they evolved too. Whether evolution (or even life) would work without a nucleic acid molecule (or something similar) to store information is a mystery, one of the reasons finding even bacteria on Mars would be so interesting. I would imagine evolution is like gravity or combustion: physics and chemistry works the same elsewhere in the universe (probably) because its all made of the same atoms so evolution should too but I'm more than open to being proved wrong if we ever find life elsewhere.

I don't think his 'the creator must have been created' thing says much about evolution though, he says it in response to the "god created the universe but he wasn't created because he always existed" argument because if a creator always existed then the universe itself could have always existed, meaning no need for a creator.

[Jimpy]

Why against the death penalty: Innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future. The penalty is not applied equally and it is just barbaric revenge as opposed to keeping the public safe. Since it's more expensive than life in jail I don't see it as in the public interest either, and it also bereaves the loved ones of that convict too.

Actually it's much cheaper because then taxpayers don't have to support the convict.

Regardless, I do agree that the death penalty isn't necessary.

[Parole Diver]

Actually it's much cheaper because then taxpayers don't have to support the convict.

This is not really the case in practice: by the time the convict has been executed the taxpayers have already spent more than they would if they had just thrown away the key.

Although it is certainly cheaper to inject someone with deadly chemicals than to incarcerate them for 30 or 40 years, the best studies on the cost of the death penalty indicate that it costs about $2 million per execution over the costs of a system which imposes life sentences for the same crimes. Moreover, about 70% of the costs occur at trial with only a minority of the costs for the appeal.

[Bettypooh]

This is not really the case in practice: by the time the convict has been executed the taxpayers have already spent more than they would if they had just thrown away the key.

That's not universally true. Here in SC where less is spent on lockups than almost anywhere else, the State and others looked into it a few years back because someone wanted to end the death penalty by saying that it wasn't cost-effective. They found that the break-even point was 19 years incarceration, any longer than than and it was cheaper to fry them They also found that the average person who got fried was young and would likely live almost twice that long till a natural death occurred so we've still got the death penalty here Even if it cost more, most of the people here want things to remain as they are and would probably even pay higher taxes to keep it this way The climate here is wonderful overall, people can find a job if they really try to, but not everything else is that rosy in SC Money sholdn't enter into this issue but it does because nobody wants to see their taxes go to support cons in or out of lockup when there are so many other better ways to spend it that will help more people. But as long as there are bad people then something will have to be done about them, and the taxpayer will always foot that bill. It's simply reality and sometimes reality sucks!

Bettypooh