Does prayer work?

WBFL
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-03-09
User is offlineOffline

KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
At least that idiot got the

At least that idiot got the conviction he so rightfully deserved. What is scary now is that the poll right next to this horror story; "Do you believe diseases can be cured by prayer?" has 21,990 (40%) 'Yes' votes right now. Jesus tapdancing christ, the irony!


Ivon
atheist
Ivon's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Prayers do work!!! In fact,

Prayers do work!!! In fact, they work 1 out of 8 times on a Keno Three Spot... Unless you play Special Keno and then god only answers 1 prayer in like 30 or something around there. Still don't believe? Here's proof, flip a coin a few times and pray for it to land on heads, I guarantee at least half of your prayers will be answered.

Free your mind.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
WBFL wrote:does prayer work ?

 No F<>King way, and it makes me sick to think about the platitudes that these religious people spill from their mouths whenever some one dear to you has died or has a terminal illness. Just taking a look at that poll shows you how alarmed we should be. It's kind of a mind trip, just how dumb people choose to be,with all of this knowledge around you,you got the Free Library,Museums,open source education for those who have a computer,along with some very good journals and TV shows like National Geographic channel , Nova:Science Now , Link TV and a few others.Religion should be abolished because it's a form of slavery.  

Signature ? How ?


Positiveaob
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-06-30
User is offlineOffline
The website

The website www.whywontgodhealamputees.com has a great discussion about this.  The forums on the site are also very good.  Basically the argument is that if god heals prayers, why wont he ever heal amputees?  If you pray he will cure your loved one's cancer or that they survive a surgery, or for that matter any medical situation where if it's ambiguous whether or not it was god or medical science which did the trick, god seems to answer about as often as you would expect it to through medical science or chance alone.  But when the result of the prayer, or the "healing", would unambigously be a result of god's actions (e.g. an amputee growing back a lost limb), god lays a big goose egg. 

 

I have heard some very weak responses to this, such as "how do you know god never heals amputees?" or even worse, "god doesnt heal amputees because it doesnt kill them and it makes them stronger."  Please.  Then how about why wont god heal those afflicted with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease)?  That's a disease that is uniformly fatal and sure as hell doesnt make anyone "stronger". 

 

Or how about why wont god heal bacterial infections?  Many many centuries (millions of years really) passed, with many many people dying, before the development of antibiotics.  But even with all the success we have had over the years developing newer and better antibiotics, bacteria keep pace by mutating and developing resistance to these drugs.  I would love to ask a christian to explain this to me.  Either god is working through medical science to create antibiotics, in which case you would have to ask (1) what took him so long? and (2) why do the bacteria, which he created, keep developing resistance, since obviously that is thwarting his efforts?  Or... you believe that god is working AGAINST medical science by creating resistent organisms to thwart the evil doctors and drug companies that create such therapies, in which case you have to ask why would he not be powerful enough to create a bacteria resistent to any current and future antibiotics?  Or...if you believe that god is just a bystander watching his creations, the bacteria and the humans, battle it out, then what would be the point of praying to him?  So what is it?


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Now that I think about it, is it not some kind of heresy or at least damnable to say prayer can do anything? Not to outdo Aquinas but prayers to either god or to one of his miracle brokers to get it to do the cure should be the only non-stake-worthy answer.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Equilibre
Equilibre's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-08-04
User is offlineOffline
 Religion is propogated by

 Religion is propogated by the parents, and then the cycle continues with each new generation.  Because of this, religion will never go away.  I've spoken to some of my creationist co-workers about this, and it's pretty scary actually.  The way most rational people believe in things like gravity, air, and evolution, is the way these people believe in god and the accuracy of the bible.  Imagine someone trying to convince you that gravity isn't real, you would hear none of it.  It's the paradox of proving that something invisible doesn't exist.  I honestly wouldn't care what people believe in, if it wasn't holding back humanity.  I mean, how many wars are fought in the name of god?  How much money is spent on those wars?  How many lives, and how much time wasted?  Sure humanity has advanced by leaps and bounds technologically, but our cultural psyche is still in the dark ages.  Makes me vomit.


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 I remember when I was new

 I remember when I was new to atheism and the first time I refused to pray was when my wife was giving birth to our daughter. I went to the bathroom and was about to pray for a good delivery and I just said to myself, "no" I am not praying. Well long story short, she gave birth to a healthy girl after only 23 minutes of pushing. 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Equilibre wrote: I honestly

Equilibre wrote:

 I honestly wouldn't care what people believe in, if it wasn't holding back humanity.  I mean, how many wars are fought in the name of god? 

Holding back humanity from what? Are you saying that if we converted the world to atheism, they'd reach some new found "humanity", fullfilling some notion of what we are supposed to be? What is belief holding us back from? And what is the source of this something we're suppose to have, and not be held back from?

 


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Knowledge

Knowledge


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:KnowledgeAnd

Zaq wrote:

Knowledge

And knowledge has some magical quality, that claims for itself that it's not be held back from us? The Gospel claim "the truth shall set you free", is a religious statement, and what we seem to be witnessing here is a comical parody of that. 

Self-deception is a valuable "survival" quality for various animals, including ourselves, knowledge doesn't have some magical bent in a secular world. What it also doesn't have is a distinctive sort of meaning either, like knowledge applies to knowing the joystick movement of Street Fighter, to cooking an ethnic dish, to the rules of soccer, and fight club. Knowledge doesn't have any sort of direction it desires to lead us to. It doesn't prefer peace, to violence, or love to hate, or any emotional proclivity over the other. "Knowledge" serves to inform our desired ends, regardless if they're ones we label benevolent, or destructive. Knowledge serves to inform concerns we've already had to begin with. I have little desire to be knowledgeable about the composition of the stars, and will perhaps remain willfully ignorant of this tid bit of data, as I am of the numerous members of a sports team, I'm not a fan of. 

Bloods and Crypts who kill each other for wearing different color clothing, don't do so out of a lack of knowledge. 

 

The problem with many atheist, who churn shit like this, is that they've been warped by the plethora of religious thinking they've been surrounded by, that they've taken some religious notions and beliefs, as a given, while still proclaiming allegiance to being secular. It's why you find them giving all sorts of divine like qualitiesto certain human emotions, to science, to reason, and to knowledgeable. 

It's why ZAQ, could stroll in all confident, and proclaim without hesitation that religion is holding us back from Knowledge, with a capital K, as if the term has a distintive sense of meaning, that distinguishes this sort of capital "K" knowledge, from the knowledge of Pokeman cards. 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
theTwelve wrote:It's why

theTwelve wrote:

It's why ZAQ, could stroll in all confident, and proclaim without hesitation that religion is holding us back from Knowledge, with a capital K, as if the term has a distintive sense of meaning, that distinguishes this sort of capital "K" knowledge, from the knowledge of Pokeman cards.  

I'm pretty sure he just capitalized the word because it was like the beginning of a sentence. Granted, it was the only word he posted, but I'm sure you know what I mean. If I made a post with one word in it, I would always capitalize it.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I'm

butterbattle wrote:

I'm pretty sure he just capitalized the word because it was like the beginning of a sentence. Granted, it was the only word he posted, but I'm sure you know what I mean. If I made a post with one word in it, I would always capitalize it.

Well, his use of knowledge here would of been of some sort of capital "K", knowledge, like the theist use of truth, with a capital "T", regardless if he capitilized the term or not, he was suggesting some sort of note of distinction. 

The one poster suggested religion was keeping humanity back, and everyone been clueless in answering the question, of what exactly is humanity being held back from? One responders suggested knowledge, a rather vague response, since knowledge holds no special merit of distinctiveness, and can apply to both knowledge of Pokeman cards, the composition of the stars, and human relationships. 

 


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:butterbattle

theTwelve wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I'm pretty sure he just capitalized the word because it was like the beginning of a sentence. Granted, it was the only word he posted, but I'm sure you know what I mean. If I made a post with one word in it, I would always capitalize it.

Well, his use of knowledge here would of been of some sort of capital "K", knowledge, like the theist use of truth, with a capital "T", regardless if he capitilized the term or not, he was suggesting some sort of note of distinction. 

The one poster suggested religion was keeping humanity back, and everyone been clueless in answering the question, of what exactly is humanity being held back from? One responders suggested knowledge, a rather vague response, since knowledge holds no special merit of distinctiveness, and can apply to both knowledge of Pokeman cards, the composition of the stars, and human relationships. 

Pretty rare that I agree completely with the argument in any single post. While both zealot groups promote some "best practice", each resist defining any common objectives as grounds for discussion. This is a very important point, because the nonsense "principle first" theorising has detrimental practical effects all over the public sphere.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
To the OP: Of course not.

To the OP: Of course not.  It is always interesting to see how theists who claim physical action by their deity attempt to rationalize the blatant inconsistencies in the reality of that belief.

 

To Zus, Twelve and Butter:  This is interesting to me.  The main benefit I see for abandoning religion is a decrease in dogma.  I don't think that dogma and fanaticism goes away under atheism (far from it!) but I do believe it is far harder to hold a dogmatic position when you don't have any kind of "infallible" source of knowledge defining your base rule-set.

 

And the fact that the concept of Truth (Big T) lies at the heart of many religions creates a fundamental obstacle to human progress.  In a rational world, even the human understanding of basic natural law (Knowledge, big K) can change in the face of evidence.

 

This is why my opposition to religion decreases along with literalism.  Most liberal theists are one step away from deists, and honestly if someone wants to be a deist I am fine with that, because that belief doesn't actually matter.  It is disconcerting though how many "theists" can live their modern lives in a totally rational, secular way, but make a total break with logic and accept the miracle claims in the NT at face value.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Prayer works just fine.

Prayer works just fine. Unfortunately, not the way those praying hope it will...

........Prayer is just another tool to keep the uninformed on the religion merry-go-round...it works really well...


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:To Zus,

mellestad wrote:

To Zus, Twelve and Butter:  This is interesting to me.  The main benefit I see for abandoning religion is a decrease in dogma.  I don't think that dogma and fanaticism goes away under atheism (far from it!) but I do believe it is far harder to hold a dogmatic position when you don't have any kind of "infallible" source of knowledge defining your base rule-set.

Infallibility, as well as "dogma" are terms applied to a sort of divinizing of a supposed truth. In my experiences with both atheist, and theist alike, I find no distinction between the levels of delusions and cognitive dissonance, or even magical thinking in both parties, and I find neither to be more rational than the other, they may be more rational concerning certain things than the other, but not in terms of the totality of their beliefs. 

There are beliefs atheist here hold dogmatically, one in particular, is that suicide terrorist were motivated by their religion to commit their atrocities, and when presented with the scientific studies and findings on the matter from Scott Atran, to the MI5, to the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism that differ from that view, you witness of foaming sense of hostility, and dogmatism, and a denial of the basic facts. 

Other sorts of "dogmatic" beliefs, include beliefs about progress, the power of religion to bend this magical notion called a "moral compass", the power of rationality and science, and an elevated believe that science and reason, are worldviews. When you often get is a parroting of ideas, that are rarely if ever reflected on, and accepted because they sounded catchy, yet clung to like the best of delusional thinkers, and the most sincere of dogmas. 

Now, this doesn't apply to all atheist or theist, but it does apply to atheist one finds abundance in such forums as this one. 

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
It's pretty amazing that you

It's pretty amazing that you go to jail for selling snake oil to people desperate for healing. But, religion gets a free pass and they can make any medical healing claims they wish. The don't need FDA approval or any scientific data to back up their 'cures.'

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:It's pretty

EXC wrote:

It's pretty amazing that you go to jail for selling snake oil to people.... But, religion gets a free pass and they can make any medical healing claims they wish.

Really? They do? So all those peddlers of penis enlargement pills, herbal remedies, alternative medicine syrups do not pass go, do not collect their $200, and go directly to jail?

And those Wisconsin parents weren't convicted of reckless homicide for praying rather than taking their dying daughter to the hospital?

Well, here my friend is a classic example of the delusional atheist. 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:EXC

theTwelve wrote:

EXC wrote:

It's pretty amazing that you go to jail for selling snake oil to people.... But, religion gets a free pass and they can make any medical healing claims they wish.

Really? They do? So all those peddlers of penis enlargement pills, herbal remedies, alternative medicine syrups do not pass go, do not collect their $200, and go directly to jail?

And those Wisconsin parents weren't convicted of reckless homicide for praying rather than taking their dying daughter to the hospital?

Well, here my friend is a classic example of the delusional atheist. 

 

 

 

 

People have been fined and imprisoned for defrauding the public. Such fraud is SOP for religion (in this case Christianity). They get a pass because their version of God is currently in favor.

Why are you so interested in giving them that pass?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:EXC

theTwelve wrote:

EXC wrote:

It's pretty amazing that you go to jail for selling snake oil to people.... But, religion gets a free pass and they can make any medical healing claims they wish.

Really? They do? So all those peddlers of penis enlargement pills, herbal remedies, alternative medicine syrups do not pass go, do not collect their $200, and go directly to jail?

And those Wisconsin parents weren't convicted of reckless homicide for praying rather than taking their dying daughter to the hospital?

Well, here my friend is a classic example of the delusional atheist. 

Are you saying that it has rarely if ever happened that parents have escaped conviction for such behavior because of their beliefs? That would be the necessary case for your accusation to be reasonable. The fact that there has been at least one counter-example is hardly relevant, you need to demonstrate that the basic claim is false.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:People have

jcgadfly wrote:
People have been fined and imprisoned for defrauding the public.

There's a whole slew of bogus products on the market, sold at nearly every grocery store, from Airborne, to herbal remedies, you're telling me these companies are being fined for selling bogus products? There are multitude of miracle diets, herbal supplements, alternative medicines on the market, that are not even remotely in danger of being fined, or the makers of them facing imprisonment. You're just making up facts as you go along.

Quote:
Why are you so interested in giving them that pass?

I'm not interested in giving anybody a preferential free pass, I'm not in favor of imprisoning or fining chiropractors, or ayurvedic practitioners, peddlers of herbal remedies, or scientologists and dianetics in their bogus but not harmful practices.

My mother has all sorts of bogus homemade remedies for colds, headaches and etc.., that have carried over from her ethnic background, I'm guessing you feel she should be fined and imprisoned for the passing on of such nonsense?

So much for your imaginary free pass huh? 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
People have been fined and imprisoned for defrauding the public.

There's a whole slew of bogus products on the market, sold at nearly every grocery store, from Airborne, to herbal remedies, you're telling me these companies are being fined for selling bogus products? There are multitude of miracle diets, herbal supplements, alternative medicines on the market, that are not even remotely in danger of being fined, or the makers of them facing imprisonment. You're just making up facts as you go along.

Quote:
Why are you so interested in giving them that pass?

I'm not interested in giving anybody a preferential free pass, I'm not in favor of imprisoning or fining chiropractors, or ayurvedic practitioners, peddlers of herbal remedies, or scientologists and dianetics in their bogus but not harmful practices.

My mother has all sorts of bogus homemade remedies for colds, headaches and etc.., that have carried over from her ethnic background, I'm guessing you feel she should be fined and imprisoned for the passing on of such nonsense?

So much for your imaginary free pass huh? 

 

 

 

Your arguments might make sense if you knew what the hell you were talking about.

Fraud - deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

The reason why there are bogus products on the market is because the government doesn't want to/ can't investigate, the victims usually can't afford to fight back and some idiots confuse autoimmune responses for product effectiveness.

And no, I don't wish to imprison your mother for buying into that stuff. I do believe that the purveyors should be scrutinized when they make claims that can be checked out by medical science. That scrutiny should be in place for the religionists also. As some of these charlatans' practices are harmful, all should be examined. If her information led to something that could be interpreted as negligent homicide, would you not want that investigated (if for no other reason than to clear your mom)?

You worked so hard at your response it makes me wonder if you have a god you're defending.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Really? They

theTwelve wrote:

Really? They do? So all those peddlers of penis enlargement pills, herbal remedies, alternative medicine syrups do not pass go, do not collect their $200, and go directly to jail?

I agree this a problem that we either don't have good laws on the books or we have lax enforcement. At least they are usually required to put in a disclaimer that these claims have not been verified by the FDA. Religion has no such disclaimer requirement.

theTwelve wrote:

And those Wisconsin parents weren't convicted of reckless homicide for praying rather than taking their dying daughter to the hospital?

Did the pastors and church leaders that peddled this religion and it's false claims to the parents go to jail? It is like sending the parents that give a sick child snake oil going to jail, but the snake oil salesman goes free collecting tax free income from more delusional people.

theTwelve wrote:

Well, here my friend is a classic example of the delusional atheist. 

Which one of your invisible 'friends' are you addressing? Jesus, the holy spirit, the Virgin Mary, etc..

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:theTwelve

BobSpence1 wrote:

theTwelve wrote:

EXC wrote:

It's pretty amazing that you go to jail for selling snake oil to people.... But, religion gets a free pass and they can make any medical healing claims they wish.

Really? They do? So all those peddlers of penis enlargement pills, herbal remedies, alternative medicine syrups do not pass go, do not collect their $200, and go directly to jail?

And those Wisconsin parents weren't convicted of reckless homicide for praying rather than taking their dying daughter to the hospital?

Well, here my friend is a classic example of the delusional atheist. 

Are you saying that it has rarely if ever happened that parents have escaped conviction for such behavior because of their beliefs? That would be the necessary case for your accusation to be reasonable. The fact that there has been at least one counter-example is hardly relevant, you need to demonstrate that the basic claim is false.

Lo, Bob. Haven't seen you in the forum lately. Usually you present a sober argument, but this one is off the mark.

In an earlier post theTwelve stated that he sees no difference between theistic and atheistic delusions and I absolutely agree. I would go even further and say that they are equally dangerous as well, not just by mere chance, but because theism is a prime example of an atheistic delusion in an of itself.

He names a few other examples, of which I find his first especially illustrative: the atheistic belief that terrorism is primarily and exclusively a product of extreme religious belilefs, which some atheists adhere to. Atheists in question not only do not bother to define terrorism in context, not bother to look at scientific research or consider their ignorance on the matter, but they dogmatically and with the zeal of a mad preacher go on a hate-spewing rampage against their favorite target. An atheist of this sort might take the form of the sorry excuse for a human being, the cynical and malicious C. Hitchens, but the delusion is certainly not limited to main stream media loud-mouths. I think theTwelve has a very strong point here and the post you are responding to is just another example of the main argument - atheists are as delusional as anyone.

It should be clear to you that your objection to theTwelve's argument is off the mark, since you really are not adressing the argument at all, but just one of the overwhelmingly nummerous examples of atheistic insanity.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:To Zus,

mellestad wrote:

To Zus, Twelve and Butter:  This is interesting to me.  The main benefit I see for abandoning religion is a decrease in dogma.  I don't think that dogma and fanaticism goes away under atheism (far from it!) but I do believe it is far harder to hold a dogmatic position when you don't have any kind of "infallible" source of knowledge defining your base rule-set.

A decrease in dogma? What do you think where religion came from? It was created by atheists, of course. Just like the belief in the "invisible hand" of the free market, or that terrorism is the "weapon of the weak", all the while none of the major western countries would dream of applying free market to their own business and they practice and promote more terror than any covert religious organisation in the universe. Naturally, the hand is invisible because there is no hand in anything but theoretical fantasy, and terrorism is primarily a weapon of the strong, because the strong can afford more of it - just like any other weapon.

All delusions in existance are produced by atheists and some are demonstratively extremely dangerous. Not seeing this and thinking that you can sommehow cure the condition by treating the symptome is the mother of all delusions and is completely paralysing for rational thought.

mellestad wrote:

And the fact that the concept of Truth (Big T) lies at the heart of many religions creates a fundamental obstacle to human progress.  In a rational world, even the human understanding of basic natural law (Knowledge, big K) can change in the face of evidence.

Care to define human progress? I don't think anyone on this planet is more delusional than an atheist with a dogmatic positivistic view, thinking that after we eliminate religion, this thing called "progress" will finally be unhindered. Together with the myth of evidence guided rational world, the delusion of progress dwarfs any religious delusion.

mellestad wrote:

This is why my opposition to religion decreases along with literalism.  Most liberal theists are one step away from deists, and honestly if someone wants to be a deist I am fine with that, because that belief doesn't actually matter.  It is disconcerting though how many "theists" can live their modern lives in a totally rational, secular way, but make a total break with logic and accept the miracle claims in the NT at face value.

If you understand theTwelve's and my argument, it is clear to you that there is no connection between "rational" and "secular", other than secular is a whole new level of irational.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Did the pastors

EXC wrote:

Did the pastors and church leaders that peddled this religion and it's false claims to the parents go to jail? 

Well, I'm sure if the pastor and church leaders told this wisconsin mother she should forgo available medical treatment and resort solely to prayer in respect to her dying child, than I'm sure they would have been tried as well. But there seems to be no evidence, or argument that they peddled this sort of belief on the mother. In fact, all my years in various churches across the country, being stuck watching countless hours of TBN, I have yet to hear a christian minister claim that prayer is a reason to forgo medical treatment, rather than an act done in addition to it. 

But sure, I think individuals who assisted this woman, such as leaders of a church claiming she shouldn't seek medical treatment for her child, should be charged, but as far as I know, there were no free passes. 

I'm curious though as to what you think of this scenario. Not too long ago some theist woman came and posted here, saying how she enjoys her life as a christian, and a couple of regular posters on this forum suggested that she should perhaps commit suicide so that she could go and be with her maker. Now let's say she takes them up on this advice and kills herself, do you feel the posters on this forum should be brought up on charges?

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If her

jcgadfly wrote:

If her information led to something that could be interpreted as negligent homicide, would you not want that investigated (if for no other reason than to clear your mom)?.....

You worked so hard at your response it makes me wonder if you have a god you're defending.

And you worked so hard to not read what I wrote:

"I'm not interested in giving anybody a preferential free pass, I'm not in favor of imprisoning or fining chiropractors, or ayurvedic practitioners, peddlers of herbal remedies, or scientologists and dianetics in their bogus but not harmful practices."

Notice, I said explicitly bogus but not harmful. So if a mother bought into some bogus home remedy that led to the death of her child, sure she should be prosecuted. And I have yet to see any real evidence, or cases for where religion specially gets a preferential free pass here, as the OP suggested. 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If her information led to something that could be interpreted as negligent homicide, would you not want that investigated (if for no other reason than to clear your mom)?.....

You worked so hard at your response it makes me wonder if you have a god you're defending.

And you worked so hard to not read what I wrote:

"I'm not interested in giving anybody a preferential free pass, I'm not in favor of imprisoning or fining chiropractors, or ayurvedic practitioners, peddlers of herbal remedies, or scientologists and dianetics in their bogus but not harmful practices."

Notice, I said explicitly bogus but not harmful. So if a mother bought into some bogus home remedy that led to the death of her child, sure she should be prosecuted. And I have yet to see any real evidence, or cases for where religion specially gets a preferential free pass here, as the OP suggested. 

 

I apologize for the misread.

If religion doesn't get a free pass, why are faith healing televangelists still running their tax free scams? Or is someone going off their meds because the preacher said God healed them (resulting in their death) still land in the "bogus but not harmful" category?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If religion

jcgadfly wrote:
If religion doesn't get a free pass, why are faith healing televangelists still running their tax free scams?

A number of high name televangelist are under investigation, from Kenneth Copeland, to Creflo Dollar, to Benny Hinn, to Paula White by the Senate Committee on Finance. So I don't know what sort of preferential free pass you're talking about?

I have yet to see the evidence that religious organizations get a free pass in what would be grounds for charges in similar acts for comparable non-religious organizations, such as big businesses. 

So far, what's been presented has been piles of goblygook, and what seems to be a myth of preferential treatment.

Quote:
Or is someone going off their meds because the preacher said God healed them (resulting in their death) still land in the "bogus but not harmful" category?

Is this another made up case? Do you have an actual case, were a preacher told one of their parishioners that he or she should get off the meds a doctor prescribed for a serous illness, because God supposedly already healed her?

Now, I'm weary in some cases of the notion of a third party liability (particulary when adults rather than children are the victims) , like should Bill Maher (who recently was given a Richard Dawkins Award for increasing scientific knowledge-- of all things) who doesn't believe in vaccinations, and that they are a flawed theory, and that "flu shots are the worst thing you can do", be brought up on charges if someone listened to him, and died from forgoing a flu shot?

 

 

 

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:mellestad wrote:To

ZuS wrote:

mellestad wrote:

To Zus, Twelve and Butter:  This is interesting to me.  The main benefit I see for abandoning religion is a decrease in dogma.  I don't think that dogma and fanaticism goes away under atheism (far from it!) but I do believe it is far harder to hold a dogmatic position when you don't have any kind of "infallible" source of knowledge defining your base rule-set.

A decrease in dogma? What do you think where religion came from? It was created by atheists, of course. Just like the belief in the "invisible hand" of the free market, or that terrorism is the "weapon of the weak", all the while none of the major western countries would dream of applying free market to their own business and they practice and promote more terror than any covert religious organisation in the universe. Naturally, the hand is invisible because there is no hand in anything but theoretical fantasy, and terrorism is primarily a weapon of the strong, because the strong can afford more of it - just like any other weapon.

All delusions in existance are produced by atheists and some are demonstratively extremely dangerous. Not seeing this and thinking that you can sommehow cure the condition by treating the symptome is the mother of all delusions and is completely paralysing for rational thought.

mellestad wrote:

And the fact that the concept of Truth (Big T) lies at the heart of many religions creates a fundamental obstacle to human progress.  In a rational world, even the human understanding of basic natural law (Knowledge, big K) can change in the face of evidence.

Care to define human progress? I don't think anyone on this planet is more delusional than an atheist with a dogmatic positivistic view, thinking that after we eliminate religion, this thing called "progress" will finally be unhindered. Together with the myth of evidence guided rational world, the delusion of progress dwarfs any religious delusion.

mellestad wrote:

This is why my opposition to religion decreases along with literalism.  Most liberal theists are one step away from deists, and honestly if someone wants to be a deist I am fine with that, because that belief doesn't actually matter.  It is disconcerting though how many "theists" can live their modern lives in a totally rational, secular way, but make a total break with logic and accept the miracle claims in the NT at face value.

If you understand theTwelve's and my argument, it is clear to you that there is no connection between "rational" and "secular", other than secular is a whole new level of irational.

 

I guess I don't understand how secular thought is the root of all fanaticism/dogma/religion, so you might need to explain that to me.

 

Besides that, I think you are exaggerating my point, aren't you?  I am not saying that secular thought will lead to utopia.  I even said very bluntly that atheists can be dogmatic.  The difference is I think it is easier to convince an atheist to abandon an idea by giving evidence than a theist who has an idea rooted in religious teaching.  But maybe you know more stubborn atheists than I do.

 

Human progress, sure...the Human Development Index combined with subjective well-being.  It is not exact, but I think you can use it as a base.

 

Again, I think you should be careful not to make too much of my point.  I don't think religion is "evil" and I don't think secularism is "good".  I do think that you can demonstrate that secular societies are more successful than theocracies though, and reducing religious fundamentalism helps encourage secular societies.  Is it always better?  Of course not.  Is a theocracy always worse?  Of course not.  The same can be said for individuals.  But overall, I stand by my statements.  If you could show me that theocracies end up higher on the HDI than secular states, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.  Don't equate my atheism with the sort of dogma you seem to be saying many atheists have until I demonstrate it.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
If religion doesn't get a free pass, why are faith healing televangelists still running their tax free scams?

A number of high name televangelist are under investigation, from Kenneth Copeland, to Creflo Dollar, to Benny Hinn, to Paula White by the Senate Committee on Finance. So I don't know what sort of preferential free pass you're talking about?

I have yet to see the evidence that religious organizations get a free pass in what would be grounds for charges in similar acts for comparable non-religious organizations, such as big businesses. 

So far, what's been presented has been piles of goblygook, and what seems to be a myth of preferential treatment.

Quote:
Or is someone going off their meds because the preacher said God healed them (resulting in their death) still land in the "bogus but not harmful" category?

Is this another made up case? Do you have an actual case, were a preacher told one of their parishioners that he or she should get off the meds a doctor prescribed for a serous illness, because God supposedly already healed her?

Now, I'm weary in some cases of the notion of a third party liability (particulary when adults rather than children are the victims) , like should Bill Maher (who recently was given a Richard Dawkins Award for increasing scientific knowledge-- of all things) who doesn't believe in vaccinations, and that they are a flawed theory, and that "flu shots are the worst thing you can do", be brought up on charges if someone listened to him, and died from forgoing a flu shot?

 

 

 

 

Talk to me when the investigations lead to convictions - otherwise I give the committee as much credence as the 9/11 commission. Until they get more than looked at - it's a free pass.

In the meantime, look at these.

http://www.letusreason.org/wf25.htm - The faith healers don't practice what they preach.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4872-Pittsburgh-Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m5d22-The-truth-about-faith-healing - A case like the one I described

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:In the

jcgadfly wrote:

In the meantime, look at these.

http://www.letusreason.org/wf25.htm - The faith healers don't practice what they preach.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4872-Pittsburgh-Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m5d22-The-truth-about-faith-healing - A case like the one I described

Where's the free pass at? How is a court ordered treatment a free pass? 

Quote:
Talk to me when the investigations lead to convictions - otherwise I give the committee as much credence as the 9/11 commission. Until they get more than looked at - it's a free pass.

And you talk to me when you can actually provide evidence, and a coherent argument as religion being given a preferential free pass. And remember this bit of wisdom: if president Obama's daughter is granted a preferential leniency when being pulled over for speeding, it's not because she was black. 

Organizations that have money, and political clout,  often get preferential treatment, regardless if their CEO is Hispanic, or if the organization is secular or religious. I get preferential treatment during job interviews, because I served in the military, but it would rather stupid to say I got preferential treatment here, because of my big dick. 

Do you get the point? To say that a Christian Organization, gets preferential treatment because its religious, the case has to be made that they get preferential treatment, and that treatment is granted because the organization is religious, and not because of other factors, such as a large and influential constituency. 

If the latter is the case, than the argument is not that religious organization get preferential treatment, or a prefernital free pass, but that large and influential groups get preferential treatment/free passes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

In the meantime, look at these.

http://www.letusreason.org/wf25.htm - The faith healers don't practice what they preach.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4872-Pittsburgh-Paranormal-Examiner~y2009m5d22-The-truth-about-faith-healing - A case like the one I described

Where's the free pass at? How is a court ordered treatment a free pass? 

Quote:
Talk to me when the investigations lead to convictions - otherwise I give the committee as much credence as the 9/11 commission. Until they get more than looked at - it's a free pass.

And you talk to me when you can actually provide evidence, and a coherent argument as religion being given a preferential free pass. And remember this bit of wisdom: if president Obama's daughter is granted a preferential leniency when being pulled over for speeding, it's not because she was black. 

Organizations that have money, and political clout,  often get preferential treatment, regardless if their CEO is Hispanic, or if the organization is secular or religious. I get preferential treatment during job interviews, because I served in the military, but it would rather stupid to say I got preferential treatment here, because of my big dick. 

Do you get the point? To say that a Christian Organization, gets preferential treatment because its religious, the case has to be made that they get preferential treatment, and that treatment is granted because the organization is religious, and not because of other factors, such as a large and influential constituency. 

If the latter is the case, than the argument is not that religious organization get preferential treatment, or a prefernital free pass, but that large and influential groups get preferential treatment/free passes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's the free pass? What do you think they had before the court intervention? Or do you really think that the first time someone was caught was the first occurrence?

Basically, if it doesn't agree with your views and threatens the god you are so adamantly defending, it must be wrong, eh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Where's the

jcgadfly wrote:

Where's the free pass? What do you think they had before the court intervention? Or do you really think that the first time someone was caught was the first occurrence?

Uhm, lets see if you can decipher your faulty logic. Did a parent have a free pass to burn her child with an iron, before being caught by child services and having the child taken away?Do I have a free pass to speed when no cops are around to catch me. The parent didn't have a free pass to forgo medical treatment for her dying child, anymore so than a pedophile had a free pass to molest a child before he gets caught.

Quote:
Basically, if it doesn't agree with your views and threatens the god you are so adamantly defending, it must be wrong, eh?

And, I'll accuse you of resorting to your delusions, since I'm not defending any God, nor do I perceive a threat here towards a god either. I could just as well be wrong, and I wouldn't give a fuck if that's a case. It's only your deluded mental faculty that assumes otherwise. Fix it, and perhaps we can talk as grown ups do.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:jcgadfly

theTwelve wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Where's the free pass? What do you think they had before the court intervention? Or do you really think that the first time someone was caught was the first occurrence?

Uhm, lets see if you can decipher your faulty logic. Did a parent have a free pass to burn her child with an iron, before being caught by child services and having the child taken away?Do I have a free pass to speed when no cops are around to catch me. The parent didn't have a free pass to forgo medical treatment for her dying child, anymore so than a pedophile had a free pass to molest a child before he gets caught.

Quote:
Basically, if it doesn't agree with your views and threatens the god you are so adamantly defending, it must be wrong, eh?

And, I'll accuse you of resorting to your delusions, since I'm not defending any God, nor do I perceive a threat here towards a god either. I could just as well be wrong, and I wouldn't give a fuck if that's a case. It's only your deluded mental faculty that assumes otherwise. Fix it, and perhaps we can talk as grown ups do.

 

 

So you do believe that the first time someone is caught committing a crime that it must be the first one they committed. What color is the sky on your world? Here on Earth, we percieve ours as blue.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So you do

jcgadfly wrote:
So you do believe that the first time someone is caught committing a crime that it must be the first one they committed. What color is the sky on your world? Here on Earth, we perceive ours as blue.

If this is what you deduced from what I've written? If so, it's not even worthy of response. I asked question about a free pass, I never said anything about the "first time someone commited a crime.

If you learned how to answer the actual questions purposed it would perhaps serve you better.

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Prayer absolutely works at

Prayer absolutely works at keeping the unwashed morons of the world quiet while they tithe.


BB4_intellect
atheist
BB4_intellect's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2008-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Socially

Okay, theTwelve, here are a couple for you. Organized religion holds people back socially and scientifically. Instead of people and countries talking to each other and working out conflicts through normal human interaction, they'd rather go to they're warm and fuzzy place and pray to an invisible deity. They'd rather go to their bedroom and read the Bible. They'd rather raise their hands the air and dance around with a tambourine, instead of facing reality. Religion holds back third world countries because they have negative "religious" thoughts regarding condoms and birth control. Twelve year old girls are raped, and are expected to keep the unwanted fetus, because according to you, god wants her to keep this baby. AIDS is rampant among countries such as Africa, and missionaries only touch on topics of abstinence, and no sex until marriage, when really they should be concentrating on handing out condoms, and teaching them that raping a young child will NOT cure their own disease. We're not even allowed to advance in science because it's so "taboo" to work with stem cells. Religion does nothing but spread the disease of superstition and unnatural belief. It allows people to blame their actions on invisible forces of 'good' and 'evil'. Please tell me how much longer this has to go on before people realize that religion WILL be the end of humanity? We will eventually all end up destroying each other over a figment of your imagination, all in the name of Zeus, Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Santa Claus, etc, etc, etc.......... I am so SICK of all of it!

And if you are in fact a theist....and you truly believe the Earth and mankind is so special to your invisible deity....please explain away the purpose of at least these three items.

1)Dinosaurs

2)Mosquitoes

3)The universe that exists outside of planet Earth


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: I guess I

mellestad wrote:
 

I guess I don't understand how secular thought is the root of all fanaticism/dogma/religion, so you might need to explain that to me.

This will be preachig to the choir, but oh well. You know how there is no god? That's because you are an atheist, rigtht? Wrong, it's because there is no god. From this follows that we atheists created everything social, including religion, dogma and fanaticism. There is just no other way, save a god coming down and creating all that as a side note. But there is no god. Just us.

mellestad wrote:
 

Besides that, I think you are exaggerating my point, aren't you?  I am not saying that secular thought will lead to utopia.  I even said very bluntly that atheists can be dogmatic.  The difference is I think it is easier to convince an atheist to abandon an idea by giving evidence than a theist who has an idea rooted in religious teaching.  But maybe you know more stubborn atheists than I do.

I don't think I mentioned utopia. There is no way to exaggerate when criticising a statement that religion stands in the way of human progress on the basis of it claiming to have the Truth. Claiming to have the Truth is a barrier to something, but religion can not be a hindrance to progress based just on that principle. Why? Three reasons:

1) Archbishop Desmond Tutu is not a hindrance to human progress, unless you define human progress to be ethnic clensing or injustice in general. I never heard Desmond claim Truth, but that's probably because I agree with his Truth fully.

2) If we employed that standard to science, none of it would be anything but a hindrance. There is something in us that likes certainty and given an opportunity (especially a social one - nothing like some good old group excitement to overrule the frontal cortex) we will dump our principles and claim to know the Truth. I don't think there is a field of science that hasn't claimed some fact at some point with no basis for it and often with grievous real life consequences. If you can't differentiate religion from science on this point, what good is the point?

3) The concept of general "human progress", as in things are getting better with time on their own account, is lunacy. We're in a constant state of "low intensity conflict" (apparently killing sand niggers is not that high on our list of intensities) and GNPs of several largest countries depend on it, so there is no way it's going to stop. Danes just deported 60 Iraqi refugees, some of them children who have known nothing but refugee status in another country, and WE ARE a part of the "coalition of the willing". We like killing people, but taking some marginal responsibility - not so much. We are taking a new bad turn every day and I fail to notice that the people organizing and vigorously fighting it in the streets, media and political institutions against this corrupt and genocidal status quo are often priests! If you accept my argument that atheists created everything social, and I see no reason why you shouldn't, you have to admit that there is something fucked up here. And that is the Truth.

mellestad wrote:
 

Human progress, sure...the Human Development Index combined with subjective well-being.  It is not exact, but I think you can use it as a base.

Yea, read above.

mellestad wrote:
 

Again, I think you should be careful not to make too much of my point.  I don't think religion is "evil" and I don't think secularism is "good".  I do think that you can demonstrate that secular societies are more successful than theocracies though, and reducing religious fundamentalism helps encourage secular societies.  Is it always better?  Of course not.  Is a theocracy always worse?  Of course not.  The same can be said for individuals.  But overall, I stand by my statements.  If you could show me that theocracies end up higher on the HDI than secular states, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.  Don't equate my atheism with the sort of dogma you seem to be saying many atheists have until I demonstrate it.

Trust me, I don't make or think too much of your point. I am not sure what the hell you deem to be successful. You have to tell me. Is the widening gap between rich and poor a success? How about leaving 1000 people to die a slow agonizing death after a hurricane, is that a success? What about capitalizing on that by chasing the remaining poor out of the city and building 'high end' housing, aka green zone instead? How about leaving govermental obligation to pivate interest that practically has two branches in the same company: one earning money on making the disaster, the other on ammending it for cash. Is that the pinnacle of success? What about new technology - naturally in the hands of private interest - is that a success? Is the constant state of war perpetuated by private interest a success?

I never said any system is better than any other, I said that "secular" has got nothing to do with "rational", definitely not once you mean working for benefit of all to be rational. I am afraid that this rational part has to be constantly added by people like us. Apparently, some people understood religion to be an attempt of stretching human care for one another beyond the scope of the primate family and those are the ones protesting in the streets today. You can choose to call them dogmatic, but guess who's a dick in that picture.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:This will be

ZuS wrote:

This will be preachig to the choir, but oh well. You know how there is no god? That's because you are an atheist, rigtht? Wrong, it's because there is no god. From this follows that we atheists created everything social, including religion, dogma and fanaticism. There is just no other way, save a god coming down and creating all that as a side note. But there is no god. Just us.

Umm ...you seem to have something wrong.  There is no god, yes.  The reality of that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people.  It doesn't follow that atheists 'created everything social'.  It doesn't mean at all that a god must have done it otherwise.  It's simple, isn't it?  Believers invented religion.  Perhaps in a incognizant sense the first believers were atheist until they were believers or invented their cult, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that only atheists and not believers have since 'created everything social'.  Humans have, certainly, but not every human is atheist nor is every human theist.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:mellestad

ZuS wrote:

mellestad wrote:
 

Again, I think you should be careful not to make too much of my point.  I don't think religion is "evil" and I don't think secularism is "good".  I do think that you can demonstrate that secular societies are more successful than theocracies though, and reducing religious fundamentalism helps encourage secular societies.  Is it always better?  Of course not.  Is a theocracy always worse?  Of course not.  The same can be said for individuals.  But overall, I stand by my statements.  If you could show me that theocracies end up higher on the HDI than secular states, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.  Don't equate my atheism with the sort of dogma you seem to be saying many atheists have until I demonstrate it.

Trust me, I don't make or think too much of your point. I am not sure what the hell you deem to be successful. You have to tell me. Is the widening gap between rich and poor a success? How about leaving 1000 people to die a slow agonizing death after a hurricane, is that a success? What about capitalizing on that by chasing the remaining poor out of the city and building 'high end' housing, aka green zone instead? How about leaving govermental obligation to pivate interest that practically has two branches in the same company: one earning money on making the disaster, the other on ammending it for cash. Is that the pinnacle of success? What about new technology - naturally in the hands of private interest - is that a success? Is the constant state of war perpetuated by private interest a success?

I never said any system is better than any other, I said that "secular" has got nothing to do with "rational", definitely not once you mean working for benefit of all to be rational. I am afraid that this rational part has to be constantly added by people like us. Apparently, some people understood religion to be an attempt of stretching human care for one another beyond the scope of the primate family and those are the ones protesting in the streets today. You can choose to call them dogmatic, but guess who's a dick in that picture.

You do know that you totally failed to address his points at all?  You ranted about very little of the sad state of affairs in the world.  If you're going to be cynical at least extend your bubble to include the fact that the human race'll go extinct eventually. 

And what is it with your hard-on for religion?  Nothing secular could do what religion does?  You just really think, in general, that it's that good?  I'm just asking, so don't bark at me.

Quote:
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
That's bloody ridiculous and you know it.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
 Honestly...I don't even

 Honestly...I don't even know where you are going with that post, ZuS.  Is your main point just an argument about the language we use when discussing religion?  Are you arguing that because of naturalism everything is secular and so religious ideas are secular?  I don't see how what I am reading in your first paragraph is a productive line of reasoning, it sounds more like you are trying to be cute with semantics, but I don't know what your point is.

 

As for points 1, 2, 3...again, what is your point?  Could you re-phrase?  I don't see how any of those have anything to do with what I was saying.  Are you mis-interpreting what I meant by human progress?  I thought I was clear, but you seem to be thinking I am talking about meeting some sort of goal, and I am not.  I was very clear about what human progress is, and how I think it can be increased more quickly by moving away from religious thought.

 

And your last paragraph is just pointless.  You are claiming *I* claim we are living in a Utopia, or that secularism will lead to one.  I have to say, with all respect, wtf?  I cannot rationalize your response to my paragraph.  I said secular societies are not perfect, but they are better than theocracies, and you responded directly by saying secular societies are not perfect so I am wrong.  Do you see why I am confused?

 

Then your last point about secular versus rational...ok, but again aren't you just playing with definitions?  I don't see how we could disagree on anything but language.  Then you say I might be a dick, and I am wrong because of logic...but I don't know why I might be a dick because I don't even understand your sentence about primates, and you act like I made some giant logical construct to make my point...if anything though, my arguments should be criticized for being anecdotal and illogical!

 

I really doubt we have much to disagree about if we spoke the same language.  Maybe you could explain again?  Is your point just that being secular does not make you rational?  If so, just say that.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:You do know

Thomathy wrote:

You do know that you totally failed to address his points at all?

The point I am adressing is the same one you fail to read in a prior exchange, so you really don't know what we are talking about.

Thomathy wrote:

You ranted about very little of the sad state of affairs in the world.  If you're going to be cynical at least extend your bubble to include the fact that the human race'll go extinct eventually.

I am not cynical. Again, I am adressing his assertion from a prior post - that religious belief is the one standing in the way of "human progress". I dismantle the idea of "human progress" and I cite just a few disasterous effects intrensic to the secular interest. Indeed, any damage religion ever did is intrensic to secular interest, because religion is intrensic to secular interest.

Thomathy wrote:

And what is it with your hard-on for religion?  Nothing secular could do what religion does?  You just really think, in general, that it's that good?  I'm just asking, so don't bark at me.

I do not have a hard-on for religion, but I do notice the subtext completely invisible to you. Very often I see certain religious leaders and their communities try to promote values supportive to my own primary goals - high minimum standard of living and equal rights and opportunity in the economic sphere for everyone, which are the prerequisites for relaxation of tension between different groups, minimalisation of corruption and increase in rational behavior of our society in general.

What I also see is their ability to organize and gather around these values and promote them through generations. These religious "nut jobs" like the followers of Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu tend to promote stuff I like in a highly durable, conscise and politically competent fashion - what more can I ask for, other then intelligent atheists who can see the benefits here?

Thomathy wrote:

Quote:
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

That's bloody ridiculous and you know it.

One-liners are shit. I tried to use this one to provoke discussion about terms like logic. Since you're the first to comment it with a non-comment, it's working very poorly.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Umm ...you

Thomathy wrote:

Umm ...you seem to have something wrong.  There is no god, yes.  The reality of that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people.

Of course it does, it implies that religious people's beliefs are not divine and thus not different in origin than yours or mine. If you look at our misconceptions and self-delusion, you will see no reason to believe that the religious delusions are more dangerous than ours. Sure, we don't believe in god, but for every delusion that we don't buy, we buy a million others and most of them are on the level of an average religious Joe. One purely atheistic delusion is that we are not believers and it is even bigger and more dangerous than the god delusion. Another one of our major delusions is that religious delusions are particularly dangerous and need to be fought. If you take a step back and look at the economic truth of our society, you might see this issue in a different light. Perhaps you might see it as a divide and conquer tactics that we are too deluded to see right in front of our noses. I think this would be reasonable to a degree.

Thomathy wrote:

It doesn't follow that atheists 'created everything social'.

It really does. We are born atheists and we acquire different delusions as we go through life - fundamentally we are believers. If you think that the most dangerous religious delusions are much more severe and dangerous than something like "the free market model", you are just not serious enough about this to investigate and see the same secular interest originating both. Don't take my word for it, take Russell's instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=4380729

Thomathy wrote:

It doesn't mean at all that a god must have done it otherwise. It's simple, isn't it? Believers invented religion. Perhaps in a incognizant sense the first believers were atheist until they were believers or invented their cult, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that only atheists and not believers have since 'created everything social'.

I am not too hard pressed to prove that the root of the tree is the only reason for it's existence. Every delusion exists because of something and that something is with us today as much as it was with us the first time an atheist thought: "I think I can use a delusion as a weapon or tool and it will be more convincing if I can convince myself along the way". What I am saying is that we should ally with other deluded, preferably the ones with our general world view and an interested in tools rather than weapons. The religious deluded are geniouses when it comes to organization and value education and are therefore an important asset.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

ZuS wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Umm ...you seem to have something wrong.  There is no god, yes.  The reality of that has nothing to do with the beliefs of people.

Of course it does, it implies that religious people's beliefs are not divine and thus not different in origin than yours or mine. If you look at our misconceptions and self-delusion, you will see no reason to believe that the religious delusions are more dangerous than ours. Sure, we don't believe in god, but for every delusion that we don't buy, we buy a million others and most of them are on the level of an average religious Joe. One purely atheistic delusion is that we are not believers and it is even bigger and more dangerous than the god delusion. Another one of our major delusions is that religious delusions are particularly dangerous and need to be fought. If you take a step back and look at the economic truth of our society, you might see this issue in a different light. Perhaps you might see it as a divide and conquer tactics that we are too deluded to see right in front of our noses. I think this would be reasonable to a degree.

Thomathy wrote:

It doesn't follow that atheists 'created everything social'.

It really does. We are born atheists and we acquire different delusions as we go through life - fundamentally we are believers. If you think that the most dangerous religious delusions are much more severe and dangerous than something like "the free market model", you are just not serious enough about this to investigate and see the same secular interest originating both. Don't take my word for it, take Russell's instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=4380729

Thomathy wrote:

It doesn't mean at all that a god must have done it otherwise. It's simple, isn't it? Believers invented religion. Perhaps in a incognizant sense the first believers were atheist until they were believers or invented their cult, but you'd be hard pressed to prove that only atheists and not believers have since 'created everything social'.

I am not too hard pressed to prove that the root of the tree is the only reason for it's existence. Every delusion exists because of something and that something is with us today as much as it was with us the first time an atheist thought: "I think I can use a delusion as a weapon or tool and it will be more convincing if I can convince myself along the way". What I am saying is that we should ally with other deluded, preferably the ones with our general world view and an interested in tools rather than weapons. The religious deluded are geniouses when it comes to organization and value education and are therefore an important asset.

 

...Still as attractive as treat.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
We should ally with the deluded?

 

I'm not sure what this means but ZuS has done a lot of crunches and deserves plenty of credit for that.

I disagree that the beginning of the tree is the root. It's not - the beginning of a tree is a seed and as my horticulturalist mate Bruce tells me,

seeds leaf and root at around the same time as part of a balanced process. Your plant needs photosynthesis to grow so leaves and exposure to the

sun are as vital as roots. Neither trees nor belief systems are a linear process.

As for 'fundamentally being a believer' I think I can say that fundamentally I have no idea what the fuck is going on and in the context I find myself

that's exactly how it should be. One the one hand the god of the deluded is a manufacture of boundless crap and on the other when I point my 5 earthly

senses at the star filled sky, it's no wonder I'm blinded.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I'm

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm not sure what this means but ZuS has done a lot of crunches and deserves plenty of credit for that.

Actually almost no crunches at all. Pullups/chinups/dead-lift/squat - abdomen gets a much better workout just trying to keep the body in one piece under extreme pressure. I seriously do no more than one abdomen workout a month and usually just for fun.

Atheistextremist wrote:

I disagree that the beginning of the tree is the root. It's not - the beginning of a tree is a seed and as my horticulturalist mate Bruce tells me,

seeds leaf and root at around the same time as part of a balanced process. Your plant needs photosynthesis to grow so leaves and exposure to the

sun are as vital as roots. Neither trees nor belief systems are a linear process.

I agree. If you look at what I wrote about a tree, it doesn't contradict what you write. I just have a certain preference in this balanced process - we should see the forest, instead of staring at any one particular tree.

There are so many issues, beliefs and emotions in the public sphere that have very similar role to that of religion. I think it's worth lookin into the undergrowth, the roots and the soil that bind this forest of religion-like delusions into what it is.

It's right there in front of you, just look at it. What connects any and all tensions between groups within a society? What connects all focus on minorities? Why do all serious activists in any single direction (minorty/women's/children's rights, anti-war, anti-corporate, free press etc.) consider all other directions of activism as really just an aspect of the same direction? Why do all serious activist accept religious activists moving in the same dirsction just fine? Because there is a common soil and roots to our poisonous forest.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As for 'fundamentally being a believer' I think I can say that fundamentally I have no idea what the fuck is going on and in the context I find myself

that's exactly how it should be. One the one hand the god of the deluded is a manufacture of boundless crap and on the other when I point my 5 earthly

senses at the star filled sky, it's no wonder I'm blinded.

I spent 2 years in a war and saw some pretty fucked up stuff. I also saw the way world reported what was hapening and how it responded. My eyes were opened when it comes to human delusion and I can't close them again.

Literally anything you ever saw or heard in news reports about the war in Bosnia you can safely disregard as false, this I guarantee you. The parallels that can be drawn to almost any war I ever heard about are staggering. Power will say and do anything, but it will not compromise on one thing - it will be power.

No matter how confused and blinded you are, you should know that clarity is possible. For me clarity is as simple as getting my priorities straight. First we stop killing people in the name of democracy, then we can talk about how rational religious beliefs are.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The quantum mechanics of prayer

The failure of prayer is directly connected to Schroediner's pesky feline. By inspection it is a near certainty that every prayer has an opposite prayer and with multiple partially negating and partially supporting other prayers.

As with the feline we cannot know for certain a prayer has not been answered until the contrary event has occurred. But as no prayer is answered and as they come in mutually exclusive groups if follows there must be multiple branching realities so that all prayers can go unanswered.

Using this principle we can exclude the existence of any universe where a prayer is in fact answered.

Thus we can demonstrate there is no just reality in which people get what they pray for as the continued existence of the human race demonstrates they never receive their just deserts.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:WBFL

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The failure of prayer is directly connected to Schroediner's pesky feline. By inspection it is a near certainty that every prayer has an opposite prayer and with multiple partially negating and partially supporting other prayers.

As with the feline we cannot know for certain a prayer has not been answered until the contrary event has occurred. But as no prayer is answered and as they come in mutually exclusive groups if follows there must be multiple branching realities so that all prayers can go unanswered.

Using this principle we can exclude the existence of any universe where a prayer is in fact answered.

Thus we can demonstrate there is no just reality in which people get what they pray for as the continued existence of the human race demonstrates they never receive their just deserts.

The moral of this story is never to trust a cat preying on his knees.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13823
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Bob Spense told me a story

Bob Spense told me a story about a guy who got stuck in an elevator and prayed to be rescued. After being rescued he claimed that it was because of his prayer that he was. BUT THEN when he went to church to thank god for saving him, he hugged a statue which wasn't anchored well, the statue fell over and crushed him to death. IN CHURCH!

 

While the death itself is not funny, the irony is.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37