The French Christopher Hitchens Paul Heinrich Dietrich

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The French Christopher Hitchens Paul Heinrich Dietrich

French author Paul Heinrich Dietrich had the Church of his time scared of him. And so much so no one knows where he was ultimately buried. He is considered to be the father of modern atheism.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Father of modern atheism my

Father of modern atheism my ass. Every member of this site who was here during the blasphemy challenge has done more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:French author

Brian37 wrote:
French author Paul Heinrich Dietrich had the Church of his time scared of him. And so much so no one knows where he was ultimately buried. He is considered to be the father of modern atheism. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

I see nothing in Wikipedia saying is he considered to be the father of modern atheism nor do I find anything on Google


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
 I once ran for the title

 I once ran for the title of Pope of Atheism.  My version of speaking Ex cathedra would contain error bars. 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
 LOL

LOL you have my vote

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Father of

Vastet wrote:
Father of modern atheism my ass. Every member of this site who was here during the blasphemy challenge has done more.

Just like when Beyond wont listen to a billionaire, fine, don't have to believe me. Here is a yutube series 3 part history of skepticism part 2 time stamp where they start talking about Deitrich time 52:20.

Argue with them then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUn9bOh3e9g

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 No he was not the first

 No he was not the first skeptic. But for his time he was the most blunt in saying "there is no god and your selfishness causes you to do bad things". Even with Paine and Jefferson, they still split the baby even with their bluntness. Paul was the loudest of his time saying "you don't need that shit".

He long before Sagan, reflected the same idea of Sagan in saying "come on guys, you really think all this was put here for us"?

Paul wrote:
Suns are extinguished or become corrupted, planets perish and scatter across the wastes of the sky; other suns are kindled, new planets formed to make their revolutions or describe new orbits, and man, an infinitely minute part of a globe which itself is only an imperceptible point in the immense whole, believes that the universe is made for himself.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I once ran

todangst wrote:

 I once ran for the title of Pope of Atheism.  My version of speaking Ex cathedra would contain error bars. 

 

 

Nobody is the Pope or king of anything. Just like Sagan said and Paul also reflected none of this was put here for any of us. Friend and foe alike all meet the same fate. The universe will go on without any record of us and do fine without us.

If Paul was stating the oposite of what religion promoted, "father of" is metaphor, he still built his ideas off those prior, his "first" was simply being the most loud and blunt. I doubt he would have considered himself arrogant or the center of anything with what he said about his place in the universe.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: No he was

Brian37 wrote:

 No he was not the first skeptic.




yeah, hypatia came first.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

 No he was not the first skeptic.


yeah, hypatia came first.

No shit surlock. Did you watch that vido moron? Again, no one is asking you to believe me. They are the historians.

"First" does not mean you don't draw off prior motifs. "First" is metaphor for timing and tweaking a prior ideas. 

Unlike you and some  of your fetishes with Asian religons, I accept there is nothing new under the sun. 

 

Now again, you don't have to like me, I am not the one who produced that documentary. 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No shit

Brian37 wrote:
No shit surlock.



i was being sarcastic. we have zero evidence hypatia was a skeptic. in fact, there's about the same amount of evidence for hypatia's existence as jesus's.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
oh, and my pointing out the

oh, and my pointing out the fact that you know nothing about asian religions qualifies me as a fetishist? knowing more than brian about a subject qualifies as a fetish? damn, then there's no hope for 90% of humanity...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:oh, and my

iwbiek wrote:
oh, and my pointing out the fact that you know nothing about asian religions qualifies me as a fetishist? knowing more than brian about a subject qualifies as a fetish? damn, then there's no hope for 90% of humanity...

Whats to know? The greek mythology of men with wings is no different than Harry Potter flying around on a broom. Religions back then were NOT written in the same mannor modern science seeks to find answers.

How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book?

Any kind motif or "wisdom" you find in any religion you can find in other words in all others. The religion is not required to understand our good behavior and bad behavior is in our evolution, not the human placebos called religions we invent. You'd understand that if you would get your stuborn head out of your ass. We are way past having to gap fill with what amounts to local tribal clubs. 

You damned well know that the  bible is a book of myth, so what makes anything written in antiquity anymore credible than that comic book?

The Asian religions just like older Hinduism and Egyptian religions had similar motifs of acts of kindness, what constitutes wisdom, and how to deal with "evil". Now if I am willing to admit Paul was not the first skeptic, you should be willing to admit there is nothing origional about the idea of religion. Paul was unique for his time. And most certainly not superstitious like religion, and don't fucking hand me any crap about how Buddhists cannot be superstious.

Saying the Asian religions were unique is like Pepsi claiming it was the first beverage because it's can is red when water was the first beverage. Paul's "uniqiueness" is not loaded with superstition and placebos. 

Religion relfects the social norms of a location, but they were never a real necessity to evolution, but an oucome of our flawed perceptions, and it always takes the skeptics and questioners to overcome our fear of change.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
"what's to know?" fuck you,

"what's to know?" fuck you, largest continent on earth! fuck you, largest, most diverse population on earth! "what's to know?" you stupid, arrogant little man.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 The only differnece

 The only differnece between religion and mythology is one is dead and the other is still believed to be more than myth.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:"what's to

iwbiek wrote:
"what's to know?" fuck you, largest continent on earth! fuck you, largest, most diverse population on earth! "what's to know?" you stupid, arrogant little man.

HEY FUCKWAD, I never said there were not different sects of Buddhism SO KOCK IT OFF IDIOT!

You "its complecated"

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME NO FUCKING SHIT

That does not make religion a requirment. It does not make motifs of good or evil or wisdom a unique patent owned by anyone.

You find an idea in one religion that reflects acts of kindness, wisdom or self control, you can find it to some degree with other religions with different words. 

You don't need a fucking religion to state the simple "Don't physicaly harm others". It is a fucking cructch it aways has been. NO you cannot get rid of it, but getting stuck on pretty is all you are doing, just like everyone else of any other religious tradition. Grow the fuck up.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
No shit surlock.

i was being sarcastic. we have zero evidence hypatia was a skeptic. in fact, there's about the same amount of evidence for hypatia's existence as jesus's.

No one has, or should create a religion over that quote and kill over it. Name me one religion in history that has not had wars. 

The value of skepticism is the message. The fake "skepticism" of Jesus challenging authority wasn't designed to question religion, but a marketing tactic to get people to join his upstart cult. 

Now if anyone did start a "Hypatia religion" then the meaning of that quote would no longer represent the value of skepticism regardless of her existence. The same cannot be said about Christianity or Jesus.

Now, wiki allows for edits, so if anyting in their entry you feel is wrong, you are more than welcome to edit it with your sources, and if the fact checkers there find it credible, it will stay. And no, not all of that entery implies she existed. Although the first paragraphs imply she did.

Now please stupidly accuse me of writing everything in that entry, including the various accounts.

And again you fuckwad. I have stated my mistakes stay up for everyone to see. Not hiding a damned thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

 

wiki wrote:
Hypatia (/hˈpʃiə/ hy-pay-sh(ee)ə or /hˈpætiə/ hy-pat-ee-ə;[2] Greek:Ὑπατία Hypatía) (born c. AD 350 – 370; died 415[1][3]) was a Greek mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher in Egypt, then a part of theByzantine Empire.[4] She was the head of the Neoplatonic school atAlexandria, where she taught philosophy and astronomy

Now why would you use the word "was" on a fictional character? If they were fictional, then you'd say something like "Hypatia was a literary character created by.....such and such"

And read down further where you could imply their is some question about her existence. I don't think you start the article off with that quoted paragraph if there are not at least some historians who claim to have evidence she was a real person.

You are welcome to argue with them as well as the documentary makers in that video.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 And further more, the

 And further more, the quote I used attributed to her did not imply she was a god or a goddess who could fart a Lamborghini out of her ass, or cure blindness or turn water into wine. We know George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim he could raise the dead.

There is no evidence that Jesus existed, but it still would not matter if he did. It would merely mean a man started a new cult and convinced others to follow him. He was not a split personality man/god, nor do magic babies exist nor do humans magically survive rigor mortis.

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Just like when

Brian37 wrote:
Just like when Beyond wont listen to a billionaire, fine, don't have to believe me.

Brian kind of admits he's wrong, but really lacks the balls to come out and say it plainly.

Brian37 wrote:
Here is a yutube series 3 part history of skepticism part 2 time stamp where they start talking about Deitrich time 52:20.

Argue with them then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUn9bOh3e9g

Brian thinks the point is debatable, but it isn't.

Brian37 wrote:
No he was not the first skeptic.

Brian thinks that saying he wasn't the first skeptic leaves room for him to be the 'father of modern atheism', but it doesn't, and he wasn't.

Brian37 wrote:
Nobody is the Pope or king of anything.

Brian is too stupid to understand a joke, and attacks yet another person's position with strawmen.

Brian37 wrote:
Just like Sagan said and Paul also reflected none of this was put here for any of us. Friend and foe alike all meet the same fate. The universe will go on without any record of us and do fine without us.

Strawman.

Brian37 wrote:
If Paul was stating the oposite of what religion promoted, "father of" is metaphor, he still built his ideas off those prior, his "first" was simply being the most loud and blunt. I doubt he would have considered himself arrogant or the center of anything with what he said about his place in the universe.

Strawman and lies.

Brian37 wrote:
No shit surlock. Did you watch that vido moron? Again, no one is asking you to believe me. They are the historians.

I hate to say this, but it appears Brian is getting dumber. His spelling and grammar are actually getting worse, snd the ease with which he falls into traps is extraordinary.

Brian37 wrote:
"First" does not mean you don't draw off prior motifs. "First" is metaphor for timing and tweaking a prior ideas. 

Even under this special exemption, the person Brian is talking about still doesn't remotely qualify as the "father of modern atheism".

Brian37 wrote:
Whats to know? The greek mythology of men with wings is no different than Harry Potter flying around on a broom. Religions back then were NOT written in the same mannor modern science seeks to find answers.

When the ignorant fool is prideful of his ignorance, all hope is lost. Brian will forever be, at best, a useless shit.

Brian37 wrote:
How much of a comic book do you have to read before you realize it is a comic book?

Brian thinks he's funny, but he isn't.

Brian37 wrote:
Any kind motif or "wisdom" you find in any religion you can find in other words in all others.

Brian thinks this somehow matters. As always, Brian is wrong.

Brian37 wrote:
The religion is not required to understand our good behavior and bad behavior is in our evolution, not the human placebos called religions we invent. You'd understand that if you would get your stuborn head out of your ass. We are way past having to gap fill with what amounts to local tribal clubs. 

You damned well know that the  bible is a book of myth, so what makes anything written in antiquity anymore credible than that comic book?

The Asian religions just like older Hinduism and Egyptian religions had similar motifs of acts of kindness, what constitutes wisdom, and how to deal with "evil". Now if I am willing to admit Paul was not the first skeptic, you should be willing to admit there is nothing origional about the idea of religion. Paul was unique for his time. And most certainly not superstitious like religion, and don't fucking hand me any crap about how Buddhists cannot be superstious.

Saying the Asian religions were unique is like Pepsi claiming it was the first beverage because it's can is red when water was the first beverage. Paul's "uniqiueness" is not loaded with superstition and placebos. 

Religion relfects the social norms of a location, but they were never a real necessity to evolution, but an oucome of our flawed perceptions, and it always takes the skeptics and questioners to overcome our fear of change.

Brian makes up a bunch of stuff, lies, and tosses out more strawmen.

Brian37 wrote:
The only differnece between religion and mythology is one is dead and the other is still believed to be more than myth.

More lies.

Brian37 wrote:
HEY FUCKWAD, I never said there were not different sects of Buddhism SO KOCK IT OFF IDIOT!

You "its complecated"

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME NO FUCKING SHIT

That does not make religion a requirment. It does not make motifs of good or evil or wisdom a unique patent owned by anyone.

You find an idea in one religion that reflects acts of kindness, wisdom or self control, you can find it to some degree with other religions with different words. 

You don't need a fucking religion to state the simple "Don't physicaly harm others". It is a fucking cructch it aways has been. NO you cannot get rid of it, but getting stuck on pretty is all you are doing, just like everyone else of any other religious tradition. Grow the fuck up.

Lies, strawmen, hypocrisy, and bullshit. Poor Brian is mad that noone is believing anything he says. It'll be a lot harder to build a cult than he thought.

Brian37 wrote:
No one has, or should create a religion over that quote and kill over it. Name me one religion in history that has not had wars. 

Brian fails to understand cause and effect.

Brian37 wrote:
The value of skepticism is the message. The fake "skepticism" of Jesus challenging authority wasn't designed to question religion, but a marketing tactic to get people to join his upstart cult. 

Brian just described himself to a T. Excuse me while I chuckle.

Brian37 wrote:
Now if anyone did start a "Hypatia religion" then the meaning of that quote would no longer represent the value of skepticism regardless of her existence. The same cannot be said about Christianity or Jesus.

Brian actually thinks this makes sense.

Brian37 wrote:
Now, wiki allows for edits, so if anyting in their entry you feel is wrong, you are more than welcome to edit it with your sources, and if the fact checkers there find it credible, it will stay. And no, not all of that entery implies she existed. Although the first paragraphs imply she did.

We can now add wikipedia to the things Brian is ignorant of.

Brian37 wrote:
Now please stupidly accuse me of writing everything in that entry, including the various accounts.

And again you fuckwad. I have stated my mistakes stay up for everyone to see. Not hiding a damned thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

Strawman and lies.

Brian37 wrote:
Now why would you use the word "was" on a fictional character? If they were fictional, then you'd say something like "Hypatia was a literary character created by.....such and such"

And read down further where you could imply their is some question about her existence. I don't think you start the article off with that quoted paragraph if there are not at least some historians who claim to have evidence she was a real person.

You are welcome to argue with them as well as the documentary makers in that video.

Brian attempts to discredit iwbiek, but fails. Because Brian is a coward, he then attempts to deflect criticism of his criticism elsewhere. But again he fails.

Brian37 wrote:
And further more, the quote I used attributed to her did not imply she was a god or a goddess who could fart a Lamborghini out of her ass, or cure blindness or turn water into wine. We know George Washington existed, but no sane person would claim he could raise the dead.

There is no evidence that Jesus existed, but it still would not matter if he did. It would merely mean a man started a new cult and convinced others to follow him. He was not a split personality man/god, nor do magic babies exist nor do humans magically survive rigor mortis.

One more example of lies, strawmen, hypocrisy, and ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:wiki

Brian37 wrote:

wiki wrote:
Hypatia (/hˈpʃiə/ hy-pay-sh(ee)ə or /hˈpætiə/ hy-pat-ee-ə;[2] Greek:Ὑπατία Hypatía) (born c. AD 350 – 370; died 415[1][3]) was a Greek mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher in Egypt, then a part of theByzantine Empire.[4] She was the head of the Neoplatonic school atAlexandria, where she taught philosophy and astronomy

Now why would you use the word "was" on a fictional character? If they were fictional, then you'd say something like "Hypatia was a literary character created by.....such and such"

And read down further where you could imply their is some question about her existence. I don't think you start the article off with that quoted paragraph if there are not at least some historians who claim to have evidence she was a real person.

You are welcome to argue with them as well as the documentary makers in that video.

 




all of this can be, and has been, said about jesus as well. thank you for proving my point: there is as much evidence for hypatia as there is jesus. in fact, since wikipedia is so goddamn reliable:


wikipedia wrote:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.



so there seems to be no question of jesus's historical existence, except on the fringe: just like hypatia. yet almost nothing definitive can be said about him as he exists only in third- and fourth-hand sources, written long after the fact: just like hypatia. he left behind not a single written word: just like hypatia. however, UNLIKE hypatia, he has been extensively quoted. we don't even have so much as a QUOTE from hypatia. damn, i guess there must be MORE evidence for jesus!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:"what's to

iwbiek wrote:
"what's to know?" fuck you, largest continent on earth! fuck you, largest, most diverse population on earth! "what's to know?" you stupid, arrogant little man.

You have no problem rejecting the Christian god as being real, and you damned well know there is no such thing as virgin births or zombie gods surviving rigor mortis. Want to guess how many different sects of Christianity there are worldwide? Have you studied every single one of them?

The first Buddha would not have been born in a vacuum either. The information that was put in his head would have been a result of surrounding and prior influences. Just like you know that Christianity is a splinter sect of the Hebrew religion. Just like the Hebrews are a result of prior Caanite Polytheism. Buddhism started not because it was a requirement to evolution, it started as a result of mere marketing. 

So no shit there are different sects of Buddhism, just like there are different sects of Islam and different sects of Christianity and different sects of Jews. And by proxy of our dissagreements here, even atheists have different views. 

"It's complecated" is a bullshit argument. DUH!

Humans create all sorts of elaborate gap filling answers and compete against each other and even within the same religion. If saying "it's complecated" or "religion is natural so back off" was an excuse to cling to old claims, then you should be consisant and condemn everyone in prior history who challenged social norms. 

No religion was arround 200,000 years ago, nor 4 billion years ago, and there will be no record of any religion or humans after our planet dies. 

Allowing religion to exist is a matter of human rights, but the ideas by themselves do not deserve pedestals. If we blindly protect an idea like as a blanket solution to keep peace, our species never would have left the caves. 

Now you keep stupidly arguing "if it weren't for religon" as an argument to leave it alone. Arabs invented algebra but that does not compell you to become a Muslim, much less value a theocracy. The Greeks came up with the word atom, yet somehow you don't believe in their polytheistic gods.

Arguments from tradition are not good reason to cling to an idea. No one is our should argue use of force. But when better tools to meausure the nature of reality are discovered, the wise discard the old cliams and move on. What you are doing is arguing the protection of kaliedoscope group thinking. The only real effect it has is creating a group. The downside is that group puts its own protection above our common existence. 

We no longer believe in the Egytpian gods. We no longer believe in Thor, and we do not have to be afraid as a species to think old claims are that important as to protect them, outside the right to make the claim. Our species progressed precisely because of our ability to challenge social norms.

 

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You have no

Brian37 wrote:
You have no problem rejecting the Christian god as being real, and you damned well know there is no such thing as virgin births or zombie gods surviving rigor mortis. Want to guess how many different sects of Christianity there are worldwide? Have you studied every single one of them?

More hypocrisy from Brian.

Brian37 wrote:
The first Buddha would not have been born in a vacuum either. The information that was put in his head would have been a result of surrounding and prior influences. Just like you know that Christianity is a splinter sect of the Hebrew religion. Just like the Hebrews are a result of prior Caanite Polytheism. Buddhism started not because it was a requirement to evolution, it started as a result of mere marketing. 

So no shit there are different sects of Buddhism, just like there are different sects of Islam and different sects of Christianity and different sects of Jews. And by proxy of our dissagreements here, even atheists have different views. 

Brian rants irrelevantly.

Brian37 wrote:
"It's complecated" is a bullshit argument. DUH!

Actually it isn't a bullshit argument. If Brian actually learned the complexities of religion he'd actually be in a position to argue against religion effectively, instead of making a fool of himself.

Brian37 wrote:
Humans create all sorts of elaborate gap filling answers

Brian himself is especially skilled in this strategy.

Brian37 wrote:
If saying "it's complecated" or "religion is natural so back off" was an excuse to cling to old claims, then you should be consisant and condemn everyone in prior history who challenged social norms. 

Brian blatantly lies yet again. iwbiek never once attempted to defend any religion in the way Brian claims he did.

Brian37 wrote:
No religion was arround 200,000 years ago, nor 4 billion years ago, and there will be no record of any religion or humans after our planet dies. 

Brian makes things up and proves his ignorance on multiple subjects once again. If fact, it is very likely that religion existed 200,000 years ago. It is even possible that religion existed 4 billion years ago; though it wouldn't have been on Earth if it did. And finally, even if the entire solar system were wiped out this second, evidence of human religions would continue travelling through the universe.

Brian37 wrote:
Allowing religion to exist is a matter of human rights

This is a pretty ridiculous suggestion for Brian to make. Societies that tried to wipe out religion failed, so obviously subjective rights are irrelevant.

Brian37 wrote:
but the ideas by themselves do not deserve pedestals.

Ideas do deserve pedestals. They are a celebration of our self awareness and intelligence. Ideas shouldn't be uncritically accepted as true, but they still deserve respect as they are a demonstration of what we are.

Brian37 wrote:
Now you keep stupidly arguing "if it weren't for religon" as an argument to leave it alone.

A strawman. Noone here ever said that.

Brian37 wrote:
Arabs invented algebra but that does not compell you to become a Muslim, much less value a theocracy.

Noone here ever said that either.

Brian37 wrote:
The Greeks came up with the word atom, yet somehow you don't believe in their polytheistic gods.

Strawman after strawman after strawman. Typical theist.

Brian37 wrote:
Arguments from tradition are not good reason to cling to an idea.

The strawmen are piling up. One day they will block out the sun.

Brian37 wrote:
No one is our should argue use of force.

Except Brian, who wants to eliminate theists.

Brian37 wrote:
What you are doing is arguing the protection of kaliedoscope group thinking.

So many strawmen.

Brian37 wrote:
The only real effect it has is creating a group. The downside is that group puts its own protection above our common existence. 

Brian thinks religion is necessary for this, but Brian is always wrong. Religion could cease to exist tomorrow and people would still value their own groups over the species.

Brian37 wrote:
We no longer believe in the Egytpian gods. We no longer believe in Thor, and we do not have to be afraid as a species to think old claims are that important as to protect them, outside the right to make the claim. Our species progressed precisely because of our ability to challenge social norms.

Brian doesn't understand anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Saying the

Brian37 wrote:
Saying the Asian religions were unique is like Pepsi claiming it was the first beverage because it's can is red when water was the first beverage.
I thought Pepsi came in a blue can? 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Now lets take a look at

 Now lets take a look at Buddhism here. 

Does this sound like scientific reality, or does this sound like a story?

Notice the use of words like "prophacy", and "spirits" and "divine"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28mother_of_the_Buddha%29

Quote:
Māyā and King Suddhodhana did not have children for twenty years into their marriage. According to legend, one full moon night, sleeping in the palace, the queen had a vivid dream. She felt herself being carried away by four devas (spirits) to Lake Anotatta in the Himalayas. After bathing her in the lake, the devas clothed her in heavenly cloths, anointed her with perfumes, and bedecked her with divine flowers
 

Notice she is a Queen. Funny how succes of a religion seems to get attached to Royalty. Might be because all religions back then falsely attribbuted their success to the divine. And if Buddhism is a historical fact outside a recorded historical legend being made up, why use the word "legend"? 

And there seems to be an account where he is born out of her side avoiding the birth cannal conveying the idea of purity.

Quote:
Legend has it that Prince Siddhārtha emerged from her right side. It was the eighth day of April. Some accounts say she gave him his first bath in the Puskarini pond in Lumbini Zone.

Now that same article mentions competing versions of this religion as well, so yea it is complecated. 

Seems to me simply another religion humans invented to create a hero. 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Now lets take

Brian37 wrote:
Now lets take a look at Buddhism here. 

Does this sound like scientific reality, or does this sound like a story?

Notice the use of words like "prophacy", and "spirits" and "divine"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28mother_of_the_Buddha%29

Oh look, Brian has made another strawman. How surprising.
He's also depending directly on wikipedia for information, which is pretty stupid.

Brian37 wrote:
Notice she is a Queen. Funny how succes of a religion seems to get attached to Royalty. Might be because all religions back then falsely attribbuted their success to the divine. And if Buddhism is a historical fact outside a recorded historical legend being made up, why use the word "legend"? 

And there seems to be an account where he is born out of her side avoiding the birth cannal conveying the idea of purity.

Quote:
Legend has it that Prince Siddhārtha emerged from her right side. It was the eighth day of April. Some accounts say she gave him his first bath in the Puskarini pond in Lumbini Zone.
Now that same article mentions competing versions of this religion as well, so yea it is complecated. 

Seems to me simply another religion humans invented to create a hero. 

One big ass strawman, courtesy of the local idiot. Nothing to see here, move along.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i literally have no idea


i literally have no idea what buddhism has to do with this discussion. the only person who brought up buddhism is brian, so he could then attack it. and he didn't even bring it up well, as he read one third-hand (at least) source on one version of one buddhist myth--a myth that isn't even accepted by all buddhists--and thinks he's able to dismiss the entire religion out of hand.
this is the very defintion of a strawman.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Now lets take a look at Buddhism here.  Does this sound like scientific reality, or does this sound like a story? Notice the use of words like "prophacy", and "spirits" and "divine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28mother_of_the_Buddha%29
Oh look, Brian has made another strawman. How surprising. He's also depending directly on wikipedia for information, which is pretty stupid.
Brian37 wrote:
Notice she is a Queen. Funny how succes of a religion seems to get attached to Royalty. Might be because all religions back then falsely attribbuted their success to the divine. And if Buddhism is a historical fact outside a recorded historical legend being made up, why use the word "legend"?  And there seems to be an account where he is born out of her side avoiding the birth cannal conveying the idea of purity. Quote: Legend has it that Prince Siddhārtha emerged from her right side. It was the eighth day of April. Some accounts say she gave him his first bath in the Puskarini pond in Lumbini Zone. Now that same article mentions competing versions of this religion as well, so yea it is complecated.  Seems to me simply another religion humans invented to create a hero. 
One big ass strawman, courtesy of the local idiot. Nothing to see here, move along.

What "straw man"

Oh you mean like "so what, it makes Buddhists feel good so leave them alone?"

Ok, the virgin birth story of Jesus makes them feel good too. Allah makes Muslims feel good too. 

No sorry, it is still all amounts to humans creating heros. 

If argument from tradition were a good argument then the earth is flat.

 

 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
good thing nobody here is

good thing nobody here is arguing from tradition.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Brian37

zarathustra wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Saying the Asian religions were unique is like Pepsi claiming it was the first beverage because it's can is red when water was the first beverage.
I thought Pepsi came in a blue can? 

Brian hasn't gotten out of the 70's and at that time, Pepsi did have red panels on their cans the width of the logo. Fun random pointless fact, the Pepsi logo started as just the words PepsiCola in red against a white background. During WWII, it was modified to be red, white and blue to appeal to people's sense of patriotism. I don't think the mostly blue can was around until the early/mid 90's. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What "straw

Brian37 wrote:
What "straw man"

Brian requests an education. Since Brian has a severe learning disability I'm quite reluctant to attempt explaining it to him. I'll just drop a link. Maybe he'll use it, but most likely he won't.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

On the off chance he does actually educate himself, I'll start being a bit more careful in my casual dismissal of his bullshit.

Brian37 wrote:
Oh you mean like "so what, it makes Buddhists feel good so leave them alone?"

Red herring.

Brian37 wrote:
Ok, the virgin birth story of Jesus makes them feel good too. Allah makes Muslims feel good too. 

Red herring.

Brian37 wrote:
No sorry, it is still all amounts to humans creating heros. 

Implied strawman.

Brian37 wrote:
If argument from tradition were a good argument then the earth is flat.

Red herring. Demonstration of ignorance. Most of the educated population of Earth hasn't believed the Earth was flat since before christianity existed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:good thing

iwbiek wrote:
good thing nobody here is arguing from tradition.

HA, then why are you spending so much time defending it? You still keep missing the issue between human rights and the claim itself. 

"It makes them feel good"? Yea, so belief in Osiris made the Eygptians feel good. Yet you dont believe in those gods.

Buddha is dipicted as a prince because back then ALL religions falsely attributed their success to the divine. 

 

If you can accept some religions as made up, wouldn't the most likely answer as to why humans believe them is that they like believing them? Still not an excuse to never verbally challenge those claims. 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i have never defended a

i have never defended a single tradition. i've merely pointed out why your attacks on traditions are ignorant and unfounded. there are plenty of valid ways to attack religions, buddhism included. you just don't use them, because they require actually knowing what you're attacking, and you're too proud and lazy to do the work.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:HA, then why

Brian37 wrote:
HA, then why are you spending so much time defending it?

Blatant lie. iwbiek has never defended a religion. He generally has kept to defining religion in discussions with Brian, who's beliefs about religions don't match with what religions actually are.

Brian37 wrote:
"It makes them feel good"?

Strawman.

Brian37 wrote:
Yea, so belief in Osiris made the Eygptians feel good. Yet you dont believe in those gods.

Red herring, strawman.

Brian37 wrote:
Buddha is dipicted as a prince because back then ALL religions falsely attributed their success to the divine. 

Red herring, argument from ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
What "straw man"
Brian requests an education. Since Brian has a severe learning disability I'm quite reluctant to attempt explaining it to him. I'll just drop a link. Maybe he'll use it, but most likely he won't. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ On the off chance he does actually educate himself, I'll start being a bit more careful in my casual dismissal of his bullshit.
Brian37 wrote:
Oh you mean like "so what, it makes Buddhists feel good so leave them alone?"
Red herring.
Brian37 wrote:
Ok, the virgin birth story of Jesus makes them feel good too. Allah makes Muslims feel good too. 
Red herring.
Brian37 wrote:
No sorry, it is still all amounts to humans creating heros. 
Implied strawman.
Brian37 wrote:
If argument from tradition were a good argument then the earth is flat.
Red herring. Demonstration of ignorance. Most of the educated population of Earth hasn't believed the Earth was flat since before christianity existed.

Cut the crap, you like theists simply don't like me boiling life down to the mundane reality it is.

Humans invent religions and gods as a placebo. 

 

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Buddha is

Brian37 wrote:
Buddha is dipicted as a prince because back then ALL religions falsely attributed their success to the divine.



there is no "divine" in buddhism. that's probably the 137th ignorant statement you've made about a religion. and me pointing that out somehow equates to defending them...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cut the crap,

Brian37 wrote:
Cut the crap, you like theists simply don't like me boiling life down to the mundane reality it is.

Brian doesn't understand that I am opposed to all irrational stupidity, not just the irrational stupidity of theism.

Brian37 wrote:
Humans invent religions and gods as a placebo. 

Red herring, argument from ignorance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cut the crap,

Brian37 wrote:
Cut the crap, you like theists simply don't like me boiling life down to the mundane reality it is.

Humans invent religions and gods as a placebo. 

 




so i'll ask you again, what's the real medicine? studying biology? agreeing with brian? that's going to help me overcome my existential loneliness? or should we all just take prozac?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Humans invent

Brian37 wrote:

Humans invent religions and gods as a placebo. 

Do you know even know why placebos are used? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4754
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Brian37

zarathustra wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Saying the Asian religions were unique is like Pepsi claiming it was the first beverage because it's can is red when water was the first beverage.
I thought Pepsi came in a blue can? 

lol - I think he does that shit just to see if any one notices.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Saying the Asian religions were unique is like Pepsi claiming it was the first beverage because it's can is red when water was the first beverage.
I thought Pepsi came in a blue can? 

lol - I think he does that shit just to see if any one notices.

Actually no. Despite some here's desperate attempt to paint me out as some bully or evil monster who wants to become Salin or Hitler, I was on auto pilot. That is an anology I have used countless times on varies pages over the years in similar words. I simply got the names of the companies transposed. I also do that with the words "there" and "their".

Still does not change the reality that there is no original religion, they all are results of prior and surrounding ideas, and merely get perpetuated through marketing. It may take elaborate books to detangle religion, but it does not take a genious to say they are all gap filling human inventions. 

Just like Dawkins explained in his book, it is a result of humans flawed perceptions. Calling it natural is not an excuse not to verbally challenge it. If that were the case every absurd claim religions make would be true. If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. 

Some here simply don't like facing that reality.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Actually

Brian37 wrote:
Actually no.

Well at least Brian can occasionally admit to his ignorance...

Brian37 wrote:
Despite some here's desperate attempt to paint me out as some bully or evil monster who wants to become Salin or Hitler,

One need not attempt anything when Brian says so himself.

Brian37 wrote:
I was on auto pilot.

What a brilliant defence. Someone should have suggested it to all the nazi war criminals who were convicted.

Brian37 wrote:
That is an anology I have used countless times on varies pages over the years in similar words. I simply got the names of the companies transposed. I also do that with the words "there" and "their".

Oops, apparently Brian CAN'T admit to his ignorance. My mistake.

Brian37 wrote:
Still does not change the reality that there is no original religion

Brian makes a self refuting claim. The existence of religion necessitates the fact that there was an original religion; even if it has since been forgotten.

Brian37 wrote:
they all are results of prior and surrounding ideas, and merely get perpetuated through marketing.

Brian makes shit up. He is quite incapable of proving this.

Brian37 wrote:
It may take elaborate books to detangle religion

It really doesn't.

Brian37 wrote:
but it does not take a genious to say they are all gap filling human inventions. 

Nor does it take a genius to realise religions are more than that. It does, however, take a functional brain and the willingness to learn. Sadly Brian fits neither of these criteria.

Brian37 wrote:
Just like Dawkins explained in his book

Again Brian quotes Dawkins as if Dawkins were an infallible god. As if we needed more evidence of the fact Brian is a theist.

Brian37 wrote:
Calling it natural is not an excuse not to verbally challenge it.

Unfortunately, Brian doesn't challenge theism at all. You have to make logical and rational arguments to challenge theism, and Brian doesn't do that.

Brian37 wrote:
If that were the case every absurd claim religions make would be true.

A ridiculous false dichotomy.

Brian37 wrote:
If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. 

Brian makes shit up again.

Brian37 wrote:
Some here simply don't like facing that reality.

Brian hates reality, so he pretends reality is not real.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15477
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Actually no.
Well at least Brian can occasionally admit to his ignorance...
Brian37 wrote:
Despite some here's desperate attempt to paint me out as some bully or evil monster who wants to become Salin or Hitler,
One need not attempt anything when Brian says so himself.
Brian37 wrote:
I was on auto pilot.
What a brilliant defence. Someone should have suggested it to all the nazi war criminals who were convicted.
Brian37 wrote:
That is an anology I have used countless times on varies pages over the years in similar words. I simply got the names of the companies transposed. I also do that with the words "there" and "their".
Oops, apparently Brian CAN'T admit to his ignorance. My mistake.
Brian37 wrote:
Still does not change the reality that there is no original religion
Brian makes a self refuting claim. The existence of religion necessitates the fact that there was an original religion; even if it has since been forgotten.
Brian37 wrote:
they all are results of prior and surrounding ideas, and merely get perpetuated through marketing.
Brian makes shit up. He is quite incapable of proving this.
Brian37 wrote:
It may take elaborate books to detangle religion
It really doesn't.
Brian37 wrote:
but it does not take a genious to say they are all gap filling human inventions. 
Nor does it take a genius to realise religions are more than that. It does, however, take a functional brain and the willingness to learn. Sadly Brian fits neither of these criteria.
Brian37 wrote:
Just like Dawkins explained in his book
Again Brian quotes Dawkins as if Dawkins were an infallible god. As if we needed more evidence of the fact Brian is a theist.
Brian37 wrote:
Calling it natural is not an excuse not to verbally challenge it.
Unfortunately, Brian doesn't challenge theism at all. You have to make logical and rational arguments to challenge theism, and Brian doesn't do that.
Brian37 wrote:
If that were the case every absurd claim religions make would be true.
A ridiculous false dichotomy.
Brian37 wrote:
If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. 
Brian makes shit up again.
Brian37 wrote:
Some here simply don't like facing that reality.
Brian hates reality, so he pretends reality is not real.

Nope the reality is that humans concoct religions. If we listened to you we'd still live in the dark ages. 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12915
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Nope the

Brian37 wrote:
Nope the reality is that humans concoct religions.

Brian assumes humans are the only creatures to ever invent religion.

Brian37 wrote:
If we listened to you we'd still live in the dark ages. 

Brian makes shit up again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.