Anti-religion internet memes

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Sep 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Indeed, religion and its influence on society is a recorded historical subject. But that does not prove anything about religion itself, other than the recorded result of religious actions, which is rife with prejudice, hatred, and violence, committed by devotees (zealots).

    Knowing the consequences of eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil has not done much good over the centuries, has it? It just made us capable of evil in the name of religion, crusades, fathwas, jihads, take your pick.

    I find it remarkable that only people seem to be adversely affected by religion, whereas animals live happily and morally within their innocence from scriptural ignorance (atheism).
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Seriously, what is the "body of knowledge" you have of God, it's properties and it's significance in reality?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I'm not sure what exactly is "oblique" about calling a person out by name in a government record...

    I've never said the bible is "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" - in fact, I think I've stated several times over the last few years that one of my biggest grievances with it is that it was in control of a very small, very influential group of people who were the only ones able to read and write, who knew the power their wielded to influence everything from kings to tax collectors to peasants actions; tell me, honestly, that none of them misused that power? A word or two changed here, a phrase altered there, etc. No, I fully recognize that fact.

    Remarkable it may be... or perhaps not? Maybe comparing a human being to, say, a toad isn't an apt comparison?

    In total, about 30 years and 4 months of discovery, questions, research, introspection, and experience; in other words, life as a whole.

    I am curious... what is it about religious belief that terrifies some non-believers so? It's no more harmful than greed, envy, or lust, yet we allow governments, corporations, and oligarchs to grow and deign to take ever increasing shares of this planets finite resources. Sure, religion has been abused and used as an excuse for war and violence and persecution... but then, so has damn near everything under the sun at this point.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well I am sorry that is the way you see it but the fact is what you see as evidence is only heresay.
    Look I like you and although I think you are wrong I have no desire to rub your face in the ground which could be the only out come of a serious debate.
    And I know that, not only for you, that facts never has a chance of winning over belief.
    Your belief comes from faith which means in your eyes you could never lose a debate.
    Now you are swinging wildly.
    Firstly I have said no such thing and if you form such an impression perhaps you should review your powers of comprehension.
    Further you should realise there is a difference between heresay and what actually passes as history.
    Rejection of hearsay or heresay or there say☺ still leaves a fair bit dont you think.
    No doubt it must upset you that your made up tales get the chop but rejecting heresay still leaves a great deal of history in place.

    Generalising as you do errodes your credibility.
    I get are saying that you are ignoring all of history...that ok but dont include me in your generalisations.

    And despite your bluster the fact remains that heresay evidence is not accepted in our courts and should be considered as totally unacceptable in dealing with a claim by a human that they are God.

    In the begining etc.

    Show that is not made up.
    Show who made this grand observation...who?
    Do you not understand the implication of presenting the story such?

    Come on who is this witness and how did they appear so as to offer an (incorrect) account of creation?
    How can this account be more than " made up"?
    How is it not made up?

    Its made up just like the flood theres a laugh.
    I am not going to make a fool of myself but you seem well equiped so you ask them .... heresay is not regarded as evidence in law courts and certainly even if it were would it not be reasonable and prudent to demand a much higher standard of evidence when considering a claim by a human that he is God.

    Come on...think about it..we have a human claiming he is God...appearing to a handful of ancient folk dieing never to come back...

    Come on man open your eyes ...assume there is a creator god type entity who created this universe, which is over 100 billion years diameter that we can establish and most likely infinite, do you actuallly think that entity would give a toss about humans let alone that it came down to Earth to go thru the nonsense you attribute to it.
    No way.
    It is the most extrodinary claim there can be and you buy it...stop think and look at the real evidence and the history of religion...

    If you cant figure that is made up I pity you.

    You deal in superstitious nonsense from the bronze age taking heresay as fact and cling to a book that is full of mistakes and mirrors of some grumpy superstitious man of the bronze age concerned with keeping his goats slaves and females under control.

    And provides licience to kill other tribes etc...really????

    Live with your belief I dont care if you want to believe lies as that is entirely your concern...

    Heresay is not evidence in our courts and certainly usless in establishing a claim that a human is God.

    How unreasonable of me.
    I wont accept heresay.
    I wont prove that the claim of another human is God is wrong.
    You cant win you know it and I know it.
    Its your belief based on your faith which means you have nothing.
    See if you can find some real evidence.
    We know ancient Eygpt existed because there remain real evidence, same with the Romans, and the great wall of China is evidence of its construction...and these are mere remains of what has your man left in evidence that he existed and was god.

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Then how can you place unquestioned trust in scripture?
    And that comparison proves what? Are we more remarkable examples of evolution than toads in the eyes of God or in your eyes? Hubris?
    Any verifiable facts?
    By your own observation you admit that religious zealotry and violence is something to be feared. That's why I'm afraid, of religious beliefs. It corrupts the mind.

    Unfortunately, scripture does not allow for exceptions to "thou shalt not have any false gods before thee" and the ONLY question is which god you believe and the location where you practice your beliefs that determines if you are safe or not.

    Hypathia was torn apart on the steps of a holy temple. So much for worship and respect for science, as well as religion.
    I call that very

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    scary.....and that was not just "past history", this is happening today.

    Please do tell me more about what 30 years of studying religious history has revealed about God. We know a lot of the history of people who believed in one God or another.
    But there is no history of anyone ever going to heaven (or hell for that matter) is there?
    Ever seen a spirit leave a dead body, only to rise slowly up towards the heavens to live in divine ecstasy for eternity? Or the earth opening up to swallow the entire body, for a torturous existence for eternity?

    Ever heard of a scientist killing another scientist for believing E = Mc^2 and receiving the Nobel Prize for his efforts, have you?

    But according to historical scripture, all atheist scientists will end up in hell. If they don't they should, do you agree with that fundamental religious tenet? Riddle me that one?
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I thought this may help your understanding on hearsay...not heresay...I cant believe I was typing heresay more so that no one noticed☺

    I think the effect finally would be that you could not prove JCs claim in your courts which is rather ironic considering as I expect your courts would have one sweare on the bible before giving evidence.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I did the first time you typed it, but did not want to distract from the message....phonetically it sounds correct...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    A birth certificate showing God as the supernatural father would have helped, I'm sure...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I am perhaps too casual.

    But I think folk should be able to move past small errors and concentrate on the big issues.

    I spent most of my working life being exact because not to do so had serious consequence.

    My current style arose from the realisation that outside my work few understood what I was talking about and so over the past ywenty years I have tried to change my expression such that ordinaty folk and indeed children could get the message I was sending which was never about religion☺

    I suppose I could go back to a more formal approach to sound clever but I do think keeping things very simple has opportunity for a wider audience to understand.

    And the message here is very simple.

    We have a human claiming he is God and such a claim needs clear evidence otherwise is remains a mere unsupported claim.

    And if the good book is god inspired could we not expect something better dare I say perfect.

    Well yes you could and should expect perfection.

    Heck any other book containing any mistakes is thrown out ...

    From my casual reading one finds there are various characters pre JC who had the same MO as JC such that it is clear JC was just another running that act.

    And it seems religion followed the nature of the group using it.

    Hunters invented animal spirits or gods tied to fertility.

    Agriculture sees Sun worship move in and then sneaky humans sort to claim a relationship with the Sun.

    So much was about astrology...take the fish symbol used by christians...they have no idea it relates to astrology.

    All these characters had twelve followers...the Sun moves thru twelve constalations...the death and resurrection the JC clones employ is a mere attempt to parrallel themselves to the Sun " dieing" mid winter and then starting back after appearing "dead" for three days...they have no idea.

    What is curious is that folk in this modern age who I call believers turn to these ancient made up stories as if bronze age goat herders had a clue.

  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    And perhaps some evidence from an expert witness explaining the vigin birth proceedure and how one can be ones own father.

    I dont know why I bother really are the holes in the story so difficult to see?

    At least someone edit the good book so the plot is credible...a new new testament perhaps...refer to JC as a good man with nice morals we should work towards...let his authority come from the credibility of his sensible guidance and throw out this nonsence that he was God.
    Anyways must go.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Well, you're kind of ossified, so to some degree it seems pointless.

    1) No matter how much I might chuckle at the old advice column morality about how she just needs contact with sperm, and not intercourse itself, to become pregnant, or cringe at the memory of a tragic Maury Povich episode in which the twelve year-old boy wasn't the father, but then the eleven year-old girl had no idea who else could be, it seems almost callous to note Janet's point about seat-wetting is usually the more practical argument against doin' the mess-around on this or that given occasion. (Imagine being so innocent like Brett Kavanaugh and all those good prep boys are supposed to have been, and how horrifying the moment would be: "No, I didn't pee on your car seat! That's pussy snot!") Oh, right. Um ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... imagine God doing the Bill Clinton dance: "I did not have sex with that woman!"

    2) Others at the time thought the Christian story about virgin birth somewhat strange; I can't remember if that's from Armstrong or Pagels, though I'm tempted toward the latter, The Gnostic Gospels.

    3) Virgins or raisins? Sexually inexperienced females or youngish, unmarried women? No, really, if making her bleed ... er ... something, something masculine insecurity, rape culture, whatever. At any rate, we can pick nits about definitions, for certain, but this is all pretty basic, which, in turn, raises a particular question:

    ↳ It's one thing to note thoughtless and uneducated faith; indeed, there is much reason to attend the damaging behaviors such ignorance licenses; still, though, why give the stupid so much power? It's kind of like the selfish effing pig in the topic post cartoon; there is nothing surprising that the resentful little piggy has precisely nothing to offer the discussion but wallowing in his own egotism; it is not surprising that the self-obsessed swine isn't smart or capable or whatever enough to actually make a point about morality. In the end, that's all it's for, else it wouldn't concede so much of what religion is to the lowest and least capable expressions of faith. So if it's not self-gratification and job security for the holy atheistic mission, what is the point of operant conditioning of lower-education and -capability religious persons?​

    I suppose the best advice I can give about virgins is there probably is a reason for the obsessive prurience. There are little scraps and signs, here and there in the record, making it possible to argue that Jesus was a nihilist and everyone else missed the point, and somewhere in the literary record, circa the period of the Apostolic Fathers, I think, is a bit implying or declaring the futility of marriage vis à vis the imminent return of Christ. It might even be derived from the Pauline evangelism; I only ever encountered the argument once, years ago, and I can't remember quite how it works.

    And, yeah, at any rate, add the two up, and sure, there will be some obsession with getting laid. It's kind of hard to explain, because you also need to be able to take it in the context of people whose faith is miles beyond cheap questions about virginity, like the Gospel of Phillip, when the Twelve appear to be jealous Jesus ain't givin' 'em enough lovin' ... y'know, compared to the hooker.

    And you'll also get hints if you study the history; the Council at Nicaea was a mess in part because of an obsessive dispute about the humanity and divinity of Jesus, and the repugnance of humanity. (They quite literally settled on heresy as doctrinal creed.) If God is capable of separating night and day, and making the Earth come together, and breathing life into clay, sure, divinely manifesting a blastocyst inside a woman ought to be pretty simple. However, compared to the rest of society around them at the time, something had them really, really focused on what ought by now be familiar issues of youth, age, purity, and corruption. Like Nicaea, when the objection was to Christ's humanity because human frailty is disgusting and Jesus cannot be weak and disgusting, so also did someone really, really need Mary to be a virgin not because God can't be a rapist but because the mother of Christ cannot be a roadworn slut.

    Which, of course, returns us to point three above. Even accounting for the proposition of the unrealistic average, that nobody can really manifest certain behavioral statistical averages, e.g., political and other subjective views, you're still setting a pretty low bar.

    Personally, observation strongly suggests the problem is that critics don't actually know enough to raise more educated challenges; to the other, we're talking about atheists here, so ignorance can't be the problem among the enlightened, right?

    Oh, right. The punch line about nihilism would be that the evangelists were much like any other guy, trying to get laid:

    "End of the world's comin'."


    "Well, you don't want to die a virgin, do you?"

    Oh, good. God's comin', and you want to go off for some sin?

    "Jesus saves. Believe and all is forgiven."
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Oh yes wverything by some perspective is point less.
    I accept my pointlessness without difficulty and so I wonder about the need not to be pointless...destiny purpose whatever...happily astronomy gives me a measure of my insignificance ... I am thinking I do enjoy the company and if I may compliment you at the risk of making you bless may I say a wonderful post it was a joy to read...I mean that sincerely.
    Have you a book or thought of writing one.
    But I suppose we would need to determine if that connection you can generate in your posts is universal...fame needs to be assured if one were serious and did the work.
    But humans like the thought of other humans and you deliver.
    The curse of being totally informed means so much hard work and I dont bother these days.
    Everyone believes "they know" I expect...well maybe or maybe not...but I know that I think I know that I dont know ... I bang on about religion but I could easily present nicely and marvel at the benefits and put a positive spin.
    A friend read tarot cards and I challenged him for scaming but he explained how he helped folk do what they should...a card may produce realisation that they really should lodge their tax return what can you say.
    Education deprives one of inosense☺
    Again wonderful post.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    One thing is clear, people of those days were not enlightened in obstetrics else they would have known that a female virgin cannot give birth to a male child. Without male sperm, she can only produce female clones of the mother. So either God was a guy or Mary was not a virgin and Jesus was not the son of God..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why is it that in matters of science you would have disqualified any proposition which had such fundamental contradictory flaws in its opening argument. I wholeheartedly agree with scientific rigor and I always enjoy your well crafted posts. I'm a fan.
    Yet you seem to more than tolerant of all the disqualifying irregularities in scripture. Would we want science to have stayed at the stage we first observed patterns in the sky and gave them names? Scripture has, as has been proven time and time again.

    When we read scripture, we read about innocence and ignorance of the nature of Mother Nature (to use a metaphor), and the belief in motivated (natural) selection (God's Will).

    If I may, why do you believe different logical standards can be applied to each "discipline"?
    With respect.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You're a libelous gaslight. Stop wasting time, troll.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Tsk, tsk. It's not libelous if it's true. Prove me wrong.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    *shrug* Whatever you say Alex - but, again, that means you are willfully and intentionally throwing out virtually all of recorded history to make your point. As to your wikipedia definition of hearsay... I already provided the definition as stated by Cornell Law School; I think I'll stick with that.

    The simple fact remains that we have a body of incidents and records passed down over generations, written by everything from kings and tax collectors to farmers and shepherds, that is not only fairly cohesive outside the expected differences in various perceptions and viewpoints, but fairly contiguous.

    You then further want to hand wave away credible archaeological evidence that supports what you are claiming is mere hearsay because of unspecified reasons you have yet to disclose, demand yet further evidence that you know full well cannot be provided outside of access to the ability to travel into the past, and have yet to put up even a token effort to provide evidence to your counter-claims.

    Sorry but in terms of a structured or rational debate, you'd be laughed out of the room for such antics.

    For one, your continual derision and mockery is a less than flattering testament to your character; you have shown that you seem incapable of debating the topic without inserting continued personal attacks, such as
    , and others.

    So, that said, I will simply shrug my shoulders and continue on with my daily life - I haven't the time nor energy to waste on one who is more intent on attempting to humiliate someone rather than make a credible and well evidenced point.

    I am curious as to what evidence would you accept as sufficient? I'm going to guess that, in reality, there is nothing that could convince you, because you have already closed your mind to the mere possibility of it and are convinced, beyond contestation, that you are correct. That is why you feel safe enough to lob various insults and character attacks while you continue to provide any demonstrable evidence to your claim. Cest la vie...

    Just to fire one back "over the bow" so to speak...

    It also tends to provide one a solid basis upon which to act and/or make claims... but then, generally, it also leads one to more questions. The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. It seems, though, that some cannot accept that which they don't know. Doubter syndrome, I guess.
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    We have Roman government records of Jesus? That's news to me.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Simple - I don't.

    I was raised in the UCC church. Around eleven or so, I started asking questions that nobody there could (or was willing) to give acceptable/sufficient answers to. By 15, I left the church and, for the next several years, slowly made my way through various stages of agnosticism, nonbelief, and others as I read and took an introspective look at myself and what I believed.

    Ultimately, I found myself lead back to the Church, but a United Methodist one. There were several highly-personal incidents that brought me there, including nearly a dozen suicide attempts, two of which should have killed me but did not, and I can reasonably attribute to my being in good health otherwise, but one of which I have absolutely no reasonable explanation on how or why I was not successful outside of "it simply wasn't my time", essentially intervention of something.

    Add to that a few other odd encounters that forced me to take a good hard look at my own values and beliefs... yeah.

    I couldn't rightly say - you are, after all, the one that made the comparison.

    Verifiable - of course not. I haven't the ability to take you back in time to experience them myself, and any text or data I present to you would no doubt be insufficient in your eyes since we cannot go back and cross-examine.

    Though, allow me to answer your question with a question - to what would you attribute a person surviving a categorically fatal self-inflicted event that, by all evidence, should have terminated them?

    So, then, do you not also fear the siren call of Power? Or greed? Lust? The other numerous forces that have set Humanity against itself since we first learned to wield a club?

    Does this mean you wish to tear down the Governments of the world, as they can (and are) abused to incite violence and cause harm? Do you wish to abolish medical science, since it can (and has) caused harm?

    Where does your fear stop being rational?

    Why is this unfortunate - what is to say that an all powerful being is incapable of appearing to different groups of people in different parts of the world in different forms? Or, even, that the same being would not be perceived differently by different cultures?

    I presume you mean Hypatia of Alexandria, who was murdered by the parabalani at the direction of Peter the lector? A politically motivated murder, per Socrates Scholasticus?

    I presume your intent is to propose that all Believers are capable of such atrocious acts of violence? This may come as a shock to you but... we are. So are non-believers. So is every human being on this planet. To place blame on all Christians for the actions of those "monks" is akin to blaming all Muslims for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, or all White skinned folks for the enslavement of Africans, or all Europeans for the demolishing of Native Americans.

    Certainly, what would you like to know?

    Well, actually, there have been some who claim to have seen the other side. The authenticity of those claims is rather difficult to ascertain, of course - how do you prove that someone has had a spiritual experience? By what metric do you measure it?

    If I said yes, would you believe me? Whereas, if I said no, you would deride me.

    Again, what evidence would you accept here?

    No, I've not heard of something so specific happening. However, people have killed one another quite frequently without Religion or Faith of any sort being a driving force.

    I rather like the Reverand Adam Hamilton's take on Hell:

    There is some debate as to what "Hell" actually is - I'm going by memory here, so bear with me, but during some of our discussions at church, it was discussed how there is evidence that the idea of Hell, as a place of Fire and Brimstone and Eternal Torment is something that was added to the bible by the Church as a means of persuasion and control and that the true biblical intent of Hell is merely being "absent from the presence of God" - essentially, that one would possible be able to look on and see the Kingdom of Heaven but, having turned their back on Grace and refusing its Gift, being unable to enter it.

    I, personally, am of the idea that a merciful God would not, in fact, leave someone to wallow in such a state forever without some powerful cause. How that would work, I'm not entirely sure - there is the idea of a purgatory, where one might experience a punishment of sorts, and then, after having a revelation or other such turning point, may be able to enter. My wife and I, being somewhat Modified Christians, believe that reincarnation could be a possibility.

    However, one of the eternal questions for any believer is, what happened to someone like Hitler, or others of that type? Someone who carried out undeniably despicable and terrifying actions of violence against humanity while actually believing they were in the right? What if they accepted Grace?

    That... I honestly don't know. It seems a contradiction of sorts - forgiveness against the weight of ones crimes, but do we claim that the Blood of Christ, spilled to cleanse any who accept Him of their Sin, has limits? Is it the intent that matters, or the actions/results?

    I just. Don't. Know. And yes, that bothers me, much the same as the idea of the Death Penalty leaves me in an odd state of inner turmoil. I honestly believe there are some that are simply too dangerous to be kept in society - at the same time, should we burden those who have done nothing wrong with providing a humane and "reasonable" existence for anywhere from 20 to 80 years, for someone who committed atrocities? What is the proper punishment there?

    It is, simply put, a question I don't have an answer for... at least, not an answer I feel is sufficient.
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member


    Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, and Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome, both referenced Jesus in their records.

    Considering that, in the grand scheme of the Roman empire, the events surrounding Jesus life would have been considered "contained" and generally unworthy of notice, the fact that they were noted at all says something on its own. After all - Rome wasn't in the habit of taking note of the affairs of backwater little towns, much like Washington DC isn't in the habit of taking note as to the machinations of some random redneck in Perry County.
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Those quotes refer to Christians, who were troublesome to some degree. The only reference to Jesus is in the dervation of the word "Christian". It doesn't seem clear to me that either Tacitus or Pliny actively believed that Jesus was real. Even the apologist who wrote the piece admits that the conclusion is speculative.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page