Biggest Hypocrite found!

Because they value belief without reliable evidence, this is the beginning of the end as far as rationality is concerned.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because they thought they were right. Just like you do.


I wonder how he squares this:

With this:

So evidently it's bad when the church condemns single moms, but they are right in condemning pornography?

Fuck you. I don't deserve to be tortured to death you sanctimonious douche.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now you are speaking without base . The crusades were in the 1100 AD there was no printed literature , the people believed the educated society ( Now is the same you believe in the primordial soup and Big Bang , Dark matter ) same as now , only we are at different level of ignorance , or let say different rational . Not all world at that time was Catholic, there were Armenian Christian , there were different sects which were not belligerent. So I believe you are wrong to lump all Christian into the same barrel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've never heard of ignorance being characterized as "differently rational" before.

 

All of the world was Christian, designated "katholikos", if it followed the Nicene Creed (father-creator, father-son-holy spirit = Trinity, virgin birth, etc., etc.), which is basically the definition of most of Christianity over its entire history and all over the world. You might be falling into a fallacy worrying about the distinction about Eastern vs Western Christianity or Catholicism vs Orthodoxy vs Protestantism. You are right to note that these are different sects. Still, all Christians can be lumped into some kind of barrel, which is that the believe in Christ ("anointed one", or Savior), this word somehow got twisted into meaning "he who will save souls." (Prior to this, the Messiah was going to rescue the land of Israel from its overlords. It was a secular matter.)

Anyway, obviously "Christian" means "follower of Christ".

 

Indubitably.

I gather that someone got the idea to take ignorance, dumb it down some more, and repackage it as something insightful or creative. And I could make a sculpture out of dung that could improve on it further.

It seems to me that the original rant has more to do with smearing the definition of religion, probably to appeal to folks who think they can escape from certain undesirable aspects of following a Church - believing they have to bow to a human leader - which seems dumb, if you believe that Just told Peter (rock) that he was the rock (Peter) upon which Jesus would build His Church. So Jesus says he wants a Church and he wants a man to be its first leader. That is a conventional interpretation of that scripture.

Contrary to (Jan's?) remark, the fact he got 16 million hits doesn't mean 16 million people support the BS. Maybe 15.99 million of them consider him a threat to their core beliefs, or there's a lot of straight-laced Christians just interested in anything they consider scandalous which stlll passes through all of their PG filters (if indeed it does).

Everything said above above, about Bill Gates preceding Microsoft, the rabbit preceding Trix, etc., correctly addresses the absurdity of the ideas put forward about Jesus being a Christian, or not being founded in the New Testament.

The idea is so stupid that your and spidergoat's remarks, added to the other folks, will best put this rant in the trashcan it belongs in: the one marked IGNORANCE GLORIFIED.

 

That was my remark, in the OP. And maybe you are right about that.

Yes. I can take that this religion is not the one christ intended, but it still is chritianity.

The rant was the reply to the original, the original is a poem, and the counter poem is a poem too.

 

aaqucnaona,

Human civilisation is the effect of real religious belief.

It may be more productive to look at the effects of Godlessness on the world.

In reality, it's not that cut and dried.
The real effect of Godlessness, is, irreversible. It's like opening Pandora's Box. This is inevitable, plust the scriptures explain how, why, and when, the deterioration of the material world, takes place.

Discussion makes no difference, in fact, I think it retards, and distracts. We've already made our (material) bed, so now we must get to the bare-bones point of what and who we are, and how we intend to act out the rest of our lives.

Right? And it's the same with Jesus and religion. We need to be religious in order to learn the controlling of the senses in order to prepare for the change of life. But if a religion does not teach how to do that, then it is ''a religion'' in name only.

The poet was merely making the distinction between the reality of following Jesus, and the empty gestures of so-called ''religions''. The latter has nothing to do with Jesus. No more than the hypocrites in the synagogues, who Jesus chastised.

IOW, religion is a real thing. You cannot pretend.

You should go and read what Jesus says, and take it in. Try to understand
what he is conveying. Then you'll be able to answer that question for yourself.

So what?

Define ''a good person'', and a ''bad person''.

Atheism itself, is just a description of a position. It is neither good or bad.
However, I believe the modern atheist position (I don't necessarily regard these people as atheists), have reached the moral low ground.

I suppose you could call it that.
I would just say most humans are atheistic (in the literal meaning of the word).

I guess I don't have anything against him, things have to take a turn in order for other things to take place. For example, before the body dies, it goes through certain transformations. Theses transformations are necessary. He's just a part of the death of mankind machinery.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good cop, bad cop!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Real atheists, maybe.

No you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have put it on.
You agree with him, and you like the fact that talks and acts like that.
It makes you feel like you're sticking it to religion.

All explicit atheism is millitant.
That's all there is.
If you don't understand religion, God, spirituality, but replace them with your own straw versions, then proceed to set them alight, you're no different, mentally, to muslims burning the american flag.
Making it known that you would tell Jesus to go f--k himself, because you don't understand what he's saying, is symbolically dangerous on so many levels. And I don't see anyone here rejecting that shame.

What dangers atheists face regarding religion, is faced by theists also.
The people who are vehemently defending their position, are not tolerent to anyone who doesn't think like them. So stop with the crying, you're not kidding anyone.

Stop kidding yourself.

No. Religion isn't an intellectual pursuit.
It is about learning to control our senses, and becoming sober individuals.

Modern atheists may not worship Satan, but you are his little helpers.
We have morals because of the influence of religion. When that goes, all morals will go out of the window (a show of morals may prevail in afluent societies). We will become pure animals in human form. The survival of the fittest, the Darwinian ideal. You can see how society changes, the more religion is eradicated (i mean real religion).

Are atheists slaves?
Do you get hung for having sex outside of marriage?
Do you find that you only get the jobs no one wants?
Do you have to sit at the back of the bus, class?
Do they have ''atheist entrance'' posted in public places?
When was the last time you watched a film that had no religious context?
BLAH!
BLAH!
BLAH!
You poor people, poor ghetto housing...

But you can dream. Right?

Real religion, has to be good, because it means not giving into to lust, greed, or even anger. It doesn't mean these things are off limits, it means you learn how to control them.

Satanism, is the opposite. It means if it feels good do it, revenge is good, love is a weakness, as is love thy neighbour. You have one life, live it to the max, blah, blah, blah...

Does any of that resonate.

You're POTENTIALLY dangerous, because you allow yourself to get taken in by this crap. You're arguing for it, but you don't what you're arguing about, or, for. You haven't given any thought to anything other than what you want, and damn the consequences,

You don't understand that poet, you don't realise that he has hit the nail on the head. You don't seem to realise that some people don't want that kind of theism, because it shows that religion is powerful for human beings. They prefer the suicide bombers, christian creationist fundamentals, and anything that keeps their idea of religion alive.

Why do you think he attracted so much attention?
What he said isn't brilliant. It is something that is obvious, and is known, but not publicised.


jan.

 

Explain and substantiate.

Define godlessnesss. Explain how and why it affects us and why that effect is bad. Why is it more productive to look at it that at belief systems that cost us lives?

Pandora's box was opened a long time ago jan, Newton was the one who did it. And so far it has given us medicine, tecnology, modern travel, modern communications, the space age, tripelling of the life span - I would never in a billion years consider not opening the Box.
Plus, which scriptures and what part of them? How are they applicable to us? The material world is on the upward trend, Jan and the box is helping us do more of that.

Oh, so we let them think about 72 virgins for killing our children on the assumption that "discussion makes no difference"?

It is a religion if the followers follow a god and its dogma. Even if its a bad religion, a religion it is. Explain and substantiate why we need to control the senses and why policing and government are less productive ways to do so than religion.

Yes it did. Jesus was still the guy in whose guise it is done - evangelism, conservatism, creationism - all of these just as much about Jesus as this non-existent "real religion" you suggest. They may not be in accord with this "pure" godliness [which the jesus in the bible doesn't possess], but it still is completely christain.

I prove otherwise. I act by good religious moral, I attend religious ceremonies and I dont believe in God. You can pretend to be religious, actually be religiously good and consider God and all religions to be child's stories on coke.

I have read what Jesus says, in fact Jesus made an atheist faster than I would have otherwise. I wonder what heavenly virutes he may be conveying when he talks about his nazistic anti-peace thinking -

And that is why he came here. No love, no mercy, no saving. I have answered my own question - he would be in orgasmic agreement with the evangelicals and the creationists. A loving god doesn't write such things Jan, and a real god knows the earth isn't flat. Your proposed Jesus is hardly more than a proposition.

So what if Stalin was an Atheist? So is bill gates and Carl Sagan.

Good - Someone who works for the betterment of humanity - helps againsts disease, poverty, hunger & helps science, technology and progress.

Bad - Someone who impedes the work of good people or does additional harm by physical violence, mental oppression, disinformation and sinister manipulation of existing systems of society.

Explain and substantiate.

The liternal meaning of the word is not Godless and immoral. Please explain your statement.

Explain and substantiate.

Inapplicable to this example.

Describe "real" atheists.

I dont understanf this sentance.

I think yu would agree too that current religions are not like what you have in mind either. You would stick it to them, no? Why should they deserve any better treatment than UFO worship cults?

No. Explicit - Stated and clearly communicated.
Militant - aggressive and oppressive.

These straw men come from the religious people of the world, they are no mine. The real religion you suggest doesn't exist.

I think Jesus, the guy who wrote the pass I quote, is much more deserving of shame.

No. The dangers atheists and theists face are due to religion - which you consider twisted and corrupt anyway.

If religion, the divine truth of God, cant stand up to the critques of teens and students, much less scientists and the intelligencia, it is very much deserving of going down the drain. Maybe your real, true religion can then make the world a better place.

No. Religion is about controlling OTHERS. Its is the best way for a leader to control his followers and for a roadkill to feel like a racer.

If he exists.

No. First of all, religion doesn't help morality. The most religious places are also the most violent. All morals go out the window when policing and governments go, like the looting in the fall of Bagdad. We are animals and any claim otherwise must to be substantiated. The only difference is in complexity, power, size, capacity and sophistication. Religion is eradicated because it was a candle in the dark and newton ushered in the day. Its time the candles burn out.

Second, if there is divine objective morality, the mere acceptance or rejection of religion effects that how?

Are atheist discriminated against? Are they threatened with violence and actually attacked too? Yes. Like I said, the world is not Sweden.

Thats where we are going, dream or not. Maybe your real religion may prevail, but the current world religions are going to die out.

Too bad Jesus was not a real relgious person then.

Fortunately atheism often comes with humanism, not satanism.

Oh, the irony...
You're POTENTIALLY dangerous - you may become a fanatic
you allow yourself to get taken in by this crap - you accept unsubstantiated claims
You're arguing for it, but you don't what you're arguing about, or, for - a religion that doesn't exist
You haven't given any thought to anything other than what you want, - a human need for meaning and purpose
and damn the consequences - to logic, sensibility, humantarianism.

Oh.. A very heavy claim, Jan, that some people want things to be bad precisely because they are bad. Who are these?

NOTHING on youtube goes viral by itself. If it was as good as you suggest, it would be among 'Love the way you lie" and "Baby" and "Charlie bit my finger". Its a hyped up controversial video, its actual merit is highly questionable.

 

aaqucnaona,

Nah! Work it out for yourself, you will come to a once and for all position.

It is what it says.

Imagine if chimps or monkeys ruled the world.

It depends on the belief system.

What is evil about Newton, or his work?

You say given us?
Please elaborate on that?

Any scriptures.,
Go read and learn.

As I said, you guys love to harp on that,k as though that is what Islam means. I am quite sure that you know it doesn't, but like to use it to validate your empty point. Next you'll be telling me that 911 was performed by religious people.

Not necessarilt, It can be irreligion.

How can something be something, if it is not that thing?

If you can't work that out for yourself, my attempt would be a waste of time.
And if you don't mind, I want to choose how I waste my time.

You still don't get it.
Religion is a set of rules and regulations, if those aren't followed, it is not religion. Something can't be something that it is not.

Then you are just making a show of religion.
How did Jesus, or any of the great saints, and devotees act?
If we are truly religious toward God, then these personalities are who we obey, emulate, learn about, or whatever type of asociation there is.
That IS religion.

I'll tell you what read the whole chapter, and then we'll discuss.

Yeah right! His carpenter trade was merely a front, he was concealing his real identity, master ninja swordman arsonist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You see what you want to see, and interpret it to suit your own world view.
There's not much more dialogueing to be done. I feel it in my bones.

???

How is that good?
Answer this: what does a person profit, if he gains the world, but loses his soul?

No need, and no point, as I have already explained them to no avail.

Already have, on more than one occasion.

The explanation is in the statement.

Both you and I have given description. Use those.

Barring cutting and pasting that statement, I can't think of a simpler way
to explain that to you.

No, I wouldn't stick it to them.

Modern/new atheism - Millitant - aggressive and oppresive.
Stated clearly to whom it may concern.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Which is why you showed the video of the tipsy atheist, ranting.
It's what you want to say, but don't have the goolies to.

It comes down to people whom you described as bad.
Bad people will use anything to gain the upper-hand.
IOW, they are morally bankrupt.

The criticisers aren't interested in the Divine Truth of God, they appear to be interested in anything but, when it comes to religion.

Life is one big control.
You think you are freely thinking and saying the things you say about religion?

I suppose we'll have to wait on the scientists to figure that one out. Heh?

I would say, the most oppressed places are the most violent.
Look how long Johanesburg was classed as the most dangerous city in the world, while under apartheid.
What about Sao Paulo, in Brazil.
The violence in Palestine, and Iraq. It's no coincidence that people in these countries are oppressed to the point of commiting violence.

Instigated by other, Powerful governments.

Yes, we are animals, but we are distinct from the other inhabitants of the planet, and any claim otherwise must be substantiated.

Said like a true Dawkinite.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It means resort to animal life, the Darwinian ideal, the survival of the fittest.

Are theists discriminated against?
Are they threatened with violence, and attacked too?
Yes.

Yes, that's where we're going, because nothing lasts.
And that sentiment is inscribed within the quote from Jesus (your smoking gun). That also means your precious worldview won't last either.

Actually he did observe the religion of ancient ones, and encouraged that to carry on. Hence his anger in the temple.

Just because you give something a fancy name, doesn't change it's character.
''Gay'', and ''bright'', comes immediately to mind.

SLOW HANDLAP--------------------------->STANDING OVASION (shouts of bravo)

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Not if it's crawling with ranting new atheists eager to squash anything that goes against their straw version of religion. Who would they bash then?
They have to start talking amongst themselves. And what would they have to say?


jan.

 

aaqucnaona,

Nah! Work it out for yourself, you will come to a once and for all position.

It is what it says.

Imagine if chimps or monkeys ruled the world.

It depends on the belief system.

What is evil about Newton, or his work?

You say given us?
Please elaborate on that?

Any scriptures.,
Go read and learn.

As I said, you guys love to harp on that,k as though that is what Islam means. I am quite sure that you know it doesn't, but like to use it to validate your empty point. Next you'll be telling me that 911 was performed by religious people.

Not necessarilt, It can be irreligion.

How can something be something, if it is not that thing?

If you can't work that out for yourself, my attempt would be a waste of time.
And if you don't mind, I want to choose how I waste my time.

You still don't get it.
Religion is a set of rules and regulations, if those aren't followed, it is not religion. Something can't be something that it is not.

Then you are just making a show of religion.
How did Jesus, or any of the great saints, and devotees act?
If we are truly religious toward God, then these personalities are who we obey, emulate, learn about, or whatever type of asociation there is.
That IS religion.

I'll tell you what read the whole chapter, and then we'll discuss.

Yeah right! His carpenter trade was merely a front, he was concealing his real identity, master ninja swordman arsonist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You see what you want to see, and interpret it to suit your own world view.
There's not much more dialogueing to be done. I feel it in my bones.

???

How is that good?
Answer this: what does a person profit, if he gains the world, but loses his soul?

No need, and no point, as I have already explained them to no avail.

Already have, on more than one occasion.

The explanation is in the statement.

Both you and I have given description. Use those.

Barring cutting and pasting that statement, I can't think of a simpler way
to explain that to you.

No, I wouldn't stick it to them.

Modern/new atheism - Millitant - aggressive and oppresive.
Stated clearly to whom it may concern.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Which is why you showed the video of the tipsy atheist, ranting.
It's what you want to say, but don't have the goolies to.

It comes down to people whom you described as bad.
Bad people will use anything to gain the upper-hand.
IOW, they are morally bankrupt.

The criticisers aren't interested in the Divine Truth of God, they appear to be interested in anything but, when it comes to religion.

Life is one big control.
You think you are freely thinking and saying the things you say about religion?

I suppose we'll have to wait on the scientists to figure that one out. Heh?

I would say, the most oppressed places are the most violent.
Look how long Johanesburg was classed as the most dangerous city in the world, while under apartheid.
What about Sao Paulo, in Brazil.
The violence in Palestine, and Iraq. It's no coincidence that people in these countries are oppressed to the point of commiting violence.

Instigated by other, Powerful governments.

Yes, we are animals, but we are distinct from the other inhabitants of the planet, and any claim otherwise must be substantiated.

Said like a true Dawkinite.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It means resort to animal life, the Darwinian ideal, the survival of the fittest.

Are theists discriminated against?
Are they threatened with violence, and attacked too?
Yes.

Yes, that's where we're going, because nothing lasts.
And that sentiment is inscribed within the quote from Jesus (your smoking gun). That also means your precious worldview won't last either.

Actually he did observe the religion of ancient ones, and encouraged that to carry on. Hence his anger in the temple.

Just because you give something a fancy name, doesn't change it's character.
''Gay'', and ''bright'', comes immediately to mind.

SLOW HANDLAP--------------------------->STANDING OVASION (shouts of bravo)

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Not if it's crawling with ranting new atheists eager to squash anything that goes against their straw version of religion. Who would they bash then?
They have to start talking amongst themselves. And what would they have to say?


jan.

 

First, this is escalating just like the militant atheists vs evagelicals situation. I will try and reduce some hostility.

If they could be rulers, they would be like us and the world would be pretty much the same. Monkeys or chimps, like they are today, would not be rulers of the world.

Weren't you comparing pandora's box to scientific naturalism? If no, sorry, I misunderstood.

How can ANY scripture be fit for that specific task you had in mind? Can you suggest some part of some scripture?

Thats not something to be argued here. That's the religion causes violence thread, I have already posted about this.

No. Irreligion is the absence or rejection of any religion or anything religious.

It would be just a different set of rules. If they came from modification of a religion, they still are the responsibility of that religion.

That presupposes that there is an afterlife, a soul, it can be lost, it is important - how am I to accept all those unproven assumptions?

That is not relevant to my statement that religious fanaticism poses real, physical threat to all humans.

Again, presupposes God and that we have his divine truth, which itself presupposes that He had some truth for us, he communicated it and that we have it. This are the first things ,the first level for criticism.

No. They are rearraged, organised, tested [and accepted or discarded] and modified ideas of other people.

And they are oppresed because modernity [modern social, poitical, economic systems and infrastruture] and science [knowledge, technology, education, research, development on which modernity depends] are missing there. And guess what fills in and worsens the oppression? Religion, unsubstantiated claims, superstitions and other elements of a time well behind us.

Which does WHAT to change the fact that the most religiously influenced people acted in a non-religious way?

We are different because of 40,000 generations of hard work and effort and 4 billion years of evolution. That is indeed something to be proud of - and we are unique because they have cumulated into us being the masters of this planet. Any claim more that this is just speculative and agaisnt the comformed knoweldge of science over 150 years.

Which doesn't provide a valid argument agaisnt the statement itself.

No it doesn't - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=relmfu

*chokes to death by hostile sarcasm*
*comes back to life, steals the -5 brownie points given before*
*dies again*

 

I see. Imperfect Christians aren't really Christians. There is no room in religion for flaws or forgiveness of same.

 

Just curious: Anything in particular about São Paulo that bothers you?

Just noting: your definition could be expanded to include a lot of subjects, even science.

I thought they did.

Compare with

Pot calling kettle black?
Getting back to the OP:

A guy who thinks he’s in touch with Jesus is an atheist?

You’ll have to cherry pick your saints. There’s plenty who would excommunicate you for not following their “rules and regs”.

Clark Kent as Übermensch, reversing certain aspects. Sure. What’s this thing about God vs wood and nails anyway? There’s subtext here, concerning Nero. There was a rebellion, it was crushed. There’s angst here, like Arjuna’s lament to Krishna (referring to your interest in the Vedas). Where (and in what text or religion) does symbolism begin or end? My point is: how do you reconcile the (usually) highly symbolic interpretation of the Vedas with the (usually) highly literal reading of the New Testament?

Last I checked the US treasury alone was worth $16T. That’s a lot of bread for all the souls who are starving, deprived of the most fundamental gifts of life. What about the living soul? The one that is here and now, nailed to the cross of indifference? They need food, medicine, material stuff. Just asking.

How so? Do you feel personally under assault, or was this just casual exaggeration?

Do you consider the fossil layers to be a revelation of a Divine Truth? Or any of a ton of such revelations? Obviously for anyone who lacks the connection to a divinity, truth will take on its more common meaning - evidence.

And if you took all of that control away, what would be left - chimps and monkeys? It seems our own adaptations to social living produced inordinate controls. I wonder what the alternative would be. Monastic life?

Do you think atheism promotes a social Darwinism? I can't find a time in history where there was much else but social Darwinism. Does that mean religion has never prevailed over a society?

Anything perceived as dumb is inherently a target for bashing, no matter what side you are on or how you define “dumb”. For example, I think you tend to bash a straw version of atheism. You probably consider half of what I say as dumb and eligible. Maybe even all of it.

Conventional wisdom teaches that they were religious extremists.

A memorable phrase. But your horns are showing. :mufc: