Page 54 of 105 [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 ... 105  Next

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

14 Mar 2015, 12:20 am

AngelRho wrote:
Just because you're a Christian doesn't make you right about everything. Putin wants to control Ukraine and stick it to the EU. He doesn't actually respect their sovereignty or the legitimacy of self-rule. It's not the first time he's absorbed former Soviet-bloc countries right back into Mother Russia through brute force. Russia is a mess right now, hence why his tactics have been to foment internal unrest and loosely support any Russian groups involved. He knows he's in no position to pull off an all-out assault. It's really no surprise Republicans don't like Putin. He reminds us too much of our own president.


Never said I was always right, never said Putin didn't do those things, and never said I did or didn't like him for doing said things.


_________________
comedic burp


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

14 Mar 2015, 12:25 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oh look out, what are you going to ask next "prove you are not a tree"?

For starters unless you want to bring in some postmodern a esoteric BS into the discussion I think the fact that we are discussing this in the manner we are is a good example of the contemporary technological world we live in. One that I contend would not exist without a means to separate what works and what does not at a level beyond basic observation.

Prove religion is abusive to teach children, and prove I don't have a right to raise my kids to believe in God.

I'm not saying ridiculous things at all. It is my choice to raise my children to believe in God, not yours. If you have kids, those kids are the ones you will be responsible for not mine, or anyone elses children.

If religion was abusive to children, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now. Get real.


_________________
comedic burp


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 12:34 am

Lying to children about science to imbue a belief in biblical creation is abuse. It is the abuse of trust. Kids trust their parents, they believe them. Deliberately and wilfully installing false knowledge into young impressionable minds is plain wrong. So is the demand that kids go against their natural sexual tendencies. Homosexuality is not a sin, neither is masturbation. As for contraception if people want to enjoy sex without a horde of kids why oh why cant they. So yes in these respects I think some aspects of religious morality are abusive.

More to the point I do not think that because you sire a child gives you exclusive rights over it. You have no more right to f**k with its head than you do its body.

oh and by the way the quote you have used was aimed at Rho not yourself. Bloody heck this new site is annoying just tried to add @rho to my previous post to avoid any further confusion and it wont let me.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Last edited by DentArthurDent on 14 Mar 2015, 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 12:48 am

appletheclown wrote:

If religion was abusive to children, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now. Get real.



Really, I think kids not committing suicide because they cannot bear the "shame" of being homosexual, or blowing themselves up in the name of allah would be a great start. Not to mention all the pregnancies caused by the idiotic celibacy vows

and as for this
:wall:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

14 Mar 2015, 9:03 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
appletheclown wrote:

If religion was abusive to children, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now. Get real.



Really, I think kids not committing suicide because they cannot bear the "shame" of being homosexual, or blowing themselves up in the name of allah would be a great start. Not to mention all the pregnancies caused by the idiotic celibacy vows

and as for this
:wall:

Are you assuming we all send our kids to that place? You're stereotyping religious folks. Not all muslims are extremists either, nor are all Christians extremists, nor are all athiests Anti-theist like you.


_________________
comedic burp


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,269

14 Mar 2015, 9:24 am

adifferentname wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
So hundreds of thousands of pink unicorns, at that rate they're hardly sounding like an endangered species.


Why are you under the misapprehension that turning this into an appeal to popularity somehow strengthens your position? It doesn't matter if there are 50 gods or 50 million, they are all allegorical devices to explain things that were not understood by those who invented them.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
Your reasoning may have something to do with your lack of comprehension. For clarity, I asked about the traditional punishment for blasphemy, not the Christian punishment for blasphemy. The question was posited in response to your rather puerile response to the following.

What 'tradition' are we talking about?


I have no idea what "tradition" you're talking about. I said "traditional" - as in "habitually done".

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
"Thousands of years of doctrine and dogma, enforced with pointy sticks and blunt objects galore, have led to a society that is permeated with superstition and fairy tales."

Which you chose to misrepresent as "a few a***holes" conquering a world of atheists.

That works great for large societies and codified religions. We're getting to the animistic tribes somewhere below...


The same standard applies no matter the size of the society or religion.

Quote:
That might be our split - my concern in the debate is whether we're absolutely considering all possibilities 'pink unicorns' that aren't reductive materialism, seemed you were suggesting that AngelRho's offer of plausibility for something sentient being behind the universe was as absurd as an imaginary landed animal; my reply was suggesting - politely - that you were substituting bigotry for critical thinking.


Thus demonstrating that you understand neither the point of allegory nor the definition of the word "bigotry". I shall do my very best to break it down. The rest is up to you.

The first cause hypothesis, as posited by creationists, is specifically used in an attempt to prove that:

- A sentient being created the universe
- That sentient being is the one that the creationist believes in.
- Everything that exists was created by something else apart from the sentient being the creationist believes in.

There are numerous holes in this argument - some obvious ones being that a sentient being is an unnecessary component, and that there is no logical reason to assume that the law of causality is bound to our universe.

Equally obvious is that there is just as much evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a super-evolved millipede or a giant sack of horse manure caused the Universe to come into existence, either by chance or design, as there is for any other human invention (e.g. God).

My position, and that of other atheists, is that suspension of critical thinking is necessary to any positive claim that an omnipotent creator exists.

Quote:
That's really the core of what I'm debating with you - religion has its roots as an experience-driven phenomena. I'd add a lot of that experience based phenomena is still alive and well today. Political expediency capitalized on all of this later.


All human inventions have their roots as an "experience-driven phenomena".

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gods are tools for self-promotion, societal control and enslavement. Any argument against that is an argument from blissful ignorance of human history.

You're still dragging this off somewhere else.


That's how conversations work outside echo chambers. New ideas are introduced, often as a means to cause the other party to consider their position. If it's making you uncomfortable, you're under no obligation to respond.


I'm still calling that a 20th century value projection.


Which I shall define as informed hindsight during the age of enlightenment.

Quote:
You're not saying 'sometimes' - rather you're implying 'always' - and if you meant always you're being specious not historical.


Shamans were revered among their tribes, had the power of life and death over other members of their tribe. The same is true of holy men and women in almost every religion we have records of. If you deny this while presenting a more pleasant alternate narrative, you are the one who is being specious.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
Quote:
Thousands, even millions, of tribes of people - less than 50 persons each. A shaman in each one, not much communication between most of them. They had beliefs in animal spirits, in sentience of the elements, that if they could make a headdress of bearskin that they took on the power of Bear or if they had some tiger claws they could take on the power of Tiger by contagion. This WAS our inquiry into the world around us and our assumptions based on it. You'd have a bunch of people dancing around the fire while drums are beating - throwing themselves emotionally into a frenzy toward a certain idea until an internal experience was triggered for them. That also had a lot to do with what they believed, that with the right work their own brains edified it.


Sources? Unless you have access to a time machine, the above is no more than speculation.


This is more what I would have expected from people who don't like evolution asking me to go back in a time machine and find the crossover species. I just described animistic tribes alive today and the similarities among them.


What you "just" did was make the assumption that modern animistic tribes are representative of ancient cultures we have no record of. What you "just" did, was pulled arbitrary population figures out of your backside and assigned them to an unspecified period of time and region of the planet. Speculation is a useful tool, but what you're presenting is fantasy fiction.

Quote:
What they have is the prototype to religion; it was practical magic and mysticism rather than a control structure. It's whole point was to bring down heavenly aid in their endeavors - whether getting food or getting rain - and their shamans posed more as technicians than politicians and courtiers as in later development.


My understanding of animism is that it sprang from the empathy of hunters whose tools for killing were rarely efficient. More often than not, the hunter would have to finish off his prey with a rudimentary cutting or stabbing tool. These intimate executions were psychologically traumatic to the hunters, who created myths and fables around the animals they killed, which was extended to other beasts and inanimate objects. That's the take-home lesson of the study of modern animistic tribes - that superstition usually has its roots in death, not creation. In guilt, rather than love.

Quote:
Your angulation seemed to suggest that all of this was the 'need to control' - if you meant to specify later religions rather than the source ideas you didn't clarify that particularly well.


No, it's common to all religious beliefs - and many non religious beliefs too. I assume you're familiar with at least the basics of human psychology.

Quote:
Whose blasphemy laws are you talking about? If you meant Islam from the start you didn't specify that, and if you mean something else you're reaching pretty far back and you'll have to specify.


I didn't mention laws - though it is specifically written into law in many modern religions. Blasphemy and apostasy were not invented with the advent of Judaism.

Quote:
It's a reducto ad absurdeum as it seems to suggest a landed specificity to something that's far more general, in its size and scope but also what you notice that your Chinese Whispers seems to be in effect across all the systems. When someone says "I believe in a sentient mastermind behind the universe" it's a very different suggestion - qualitatively - than "I believe in the Great Pumpkin".


Your argument might have merit if it were commonplace for people to claim "I believe in a sentient mastermind behind the Universe". However, they are more inclined to state "I believe in God" exactly the same suggestion - qualitatively - as "I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn". This can easily be demonstrated by using the example you provided as part of a dialogue.

"I believe in a sentient mastermind behind the universe."
"Tell me more"
"His name is God"

The conversation remains the same when you replace God with any thing or being - e.g. The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Quote:
If you believe you're using some well-worn slang in good taste it might not be your fault, albeit I really have doubts on whoever coined that for you in that case. Again - it's an oversimplification of a more abstract phenomena. To believe that The Deity is a Pink Unicorn or all the deities of history are thousands of them gives me the impression that you're hearkening back to your high school history text books where they have enough time to give you a slew of particulars without the connecting dynamics.


Considering how clumsy a strawman you've had to construct in order to write the patronising pile of fallacious nonsense you've provided here, it's evident that you're confused about atheism.

It's especially ironic, considering your puerile "high school history book" comment, that you have made such a schoolboy error as to suggest that I believe in gods. I do not believe that any deity exists. I do not believe that there is a single Invisible Pink Unicorn, let alone thousands. I've explained, at length, the purpose of the allegory of the Invisible Pink Unicorn - it's analogous to the FSM.

Seriously, as a moderator, I would expect a better standard of argument than an ad hominem disparaging of my credentials. Shame on you.


This is truly a sad and narrow view you express here of GOD, Mr. A different Name. Your verbal intelligence is to be lauded and is expressed very well. But what you are missing here is the same as many fundamentalist Christians and that my friend is a verbal expression of the ONENESS with Mother Nature aka GOD that primitive people's have been expressing in ART from the earliest historical records known to mankind.

In FACT, 'THE FIRST GOD MIN', in Egyptian LORE, THE GOD OF FERTILITY EXPRESSES WHAT IT MEANS TO SURVIVE WITH PENIS FULLY IN TOW AND IN HAND TOO, TO CELEBRATE THE TOOL OF LIFE THAT MAKES LIFE HAPPEN FOR HUMANS, and as science now shows, one of two male and female flesh and blood tools used to celebrate the lust in humankind to the point of measured instruments for girth and lubrication that drives human creativity and productivity at core of human being.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out or any verbal intelligence of standard IQ measure of note, at all.

And truly it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine stuff like girth or lubrication, as it is in the eyes of the enabled holders of the passion IN bright DOPAMINE ENHANCED eyes, and manifest creativity and productivity that is easily visible to the human eye without words.

LUST in all its forms is what drives humankind truly forward. It is the core source of creativity and productivity and the most ancient of GODS of LORE that reflect this part of human nature reflect the GOD that IS NATURE, AS WELL.

I MEAN SERIOUSLY, it's nice that we have the tool of science to describe the world around us, including the laws of the GOD of Mother Nature nicely manifest in textbooks, so we no longer have to fear if the SUN will rise and regain its measure of light after a night's rest or rebirth after an eclipse but never the less, to forget and not practice what truly connects human beings non-verbally in the art of sensual life that includes all things of lust in sexuality; emotions of affective empathy, including the elements of oxytocin and mirror neurons in biological reductionism that connect us to other animals, and a full six senses that connects us to the rest of the environment, most importantly proprioception, the ability to feel the world without the other five senses, TRULY DOESN'T MAKES full SENSE, IF FULLER HUMAN INTELLIGENCE(s) LIKE THIS IS/ARE NOT PRACTICED AS ART, AND INSTEAD JUST THE DETAILS OF SCIENCE.

WELL, my friend, I have been literally compared to the GOD MIN, in real life for 'good' fully FELT empirical reasons.

And WHEN I GO TO RAVE DANCE ME, AT 54, AND MY girl FRIENDS, YES FRIENDS, ALL in their early twenties hanging all over me in the art of dance that I continue to practice and perform like a ballerina real life PAN, if you can imagine that, me at 233LBS of 930LBS of kick a** power, IMAGinE the deLight I have when my good FRIENDS that are these young and gorgeous girls ask me to see A LINK FOR MY FREE VERSE NUDE POETRY, where I copy MIN DOWN TO 'smallest' DETAILS IF YOU GET MY DRIFT, TO THE TUNE of Lady Gaga's Born this way.

Here's the deal, WE (most of us, anyway) are literally born connected to mother nature aka GOD, not CLASSICALLY EVOLVED to gain the illusion of separation, either through false IDOLS OF gods of separation, or literal ways of abstract verbal thinking that puts 'us' in a world of illusion in our mind that is just THAT in relative way to the real flesh and blood world to delight in all 6 senses and infinite spectrum of emotional nuance in life AND TO CONNECT TO ALL THAT IS AKA GOD MAKES US MINI-UNIVERSES UNTO OURSELVES IF FULLY EXPERIENCED, expressed AND NOT SHUT DOWN BY THE ILLUSIONS OF limiting cultures and verbal abstract concepts.

So what I'm saying here is verbal intelligence is nice but if one stays there too much, INCLUDING STUFF LIKE THE FRIGGING BIBLE or other fundamentalist details in the devil way of life, one misses the TRUE fuller PI OF LIFE, JUST IN RECOGNITION OF TODAY, THE 14TH OF MARCH, TOO, TO SUIT THE SCRIBE OF SCIENCE THAT IS IMPORTANT, YES, BUT IN TRUTH WITH MORE, so MUCH MORE, takEN in TO NON-VERBAL recognition, ONLY A FLAKE OF THE GOD THAT IS ALL THAT PRODUCES MORE WITH A STIFF MIN THAN A WELL INKED PEN.

And again, 'we' as in me are/is not just talking about little ones running about here and there, we are TALKING ABOUT A STIFF MIN AND ITS VENUS OR APHRODITE COUNTERPART THAT is truly at core responsible for all the frigging byproducts of culture all around us, not a frigging text of book or sanskrit alone.

But anyway, experiencing all the nuances of life is the BEST PART OF ALL. TO DWELL TOO MUCH IN ONE PART OF MIND IN TRUE EFFECT AND AFFECT IS REALLY SEPARATION FROM THE GOD OF NATURE.

AND MY MINISTRY OF LIFE IS TO CONNECT, AND BABY I EVIDENCE IT ALL THE FRIGGING WAYS OF WHAT LIFE CAN BE WHEN FULLer EXERCISED and practiced continuALLy, AS SUCH, in the link here of even MORE PROOF OF THE GOD OF MOTHER NATURE I LIVE HErE, MANIFEST IN HUMAN NATURE IN THIS FOLLOWING LINK THAT CANNOT BE REFUTED when the flesh and blood hits the delight of road in life, otherwise known as the heaven in now, as forecast by the so-called real Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels in link here, two (too).

Your GOD that you talk about and don't believe in, isn't real; my GOD that I manifest in FLESH AND BLOOD AS THE PART THAT IS ME, IS IRREFUTABLY REAL.

AND SOME PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT GOD IN ME, PER 'NAMASTE', AND SING IT BACK IN arms of young women browsing my body in flesh and blood and vicariously, virtually to(O)(;) poetic words shared with the rest of the International world of online poets, in my expanded circles, as such.

I connect in emotions, senses, FLESH AND BLOOD, and little AND LONG WINDED non-verbal written words of love and passion, where most males dare not go.

But i for one...

AIN'T SCARED, BABY..;)

AND FRIGGING LIVE, AS A CHILD OF GOD FULLY EXPRESSED WHERE MOTHER NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE LIVE AS ONE FLESH AND BLOOD SUIT OF LIFE.

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PAN OR MIN, IN MYTHOLOGY COME FLESH AND BLOOD LIFE true in living color.

I listen to the HUMAN combined with MOTHER NATURE TRUE AKA GOD spirit within, and manifest it in REAL LIFE, in heArt, and sOUL FOR ALL TO SEE with more than just words of eyes.

Pictures tell more words than these words, WILL EVER DO, no matter how long, dictionary complex, abstract OR ORGANIC, i can ever make 'em, TO BE OR NOT TO BE.

Truly words are so frigging limited compared to life.

That is where the bible and science will always fail, in SIMPLY LIVING A FULL LIFE WITH HUMAN NATURE FULLY EXPRESSED WITH MOTHER NATURE, INCLUDING other human natures TRUE THAT IS GOD IN TRUTH, IRREFUTABLY PROVEN, AS SUCH, WHEN THE FLESH AND BLOOD FULLY CONNECTS TO THE ROAD OF GOD LIFE.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

And to be clear, I do all this ART of human being to inspire the reading audience, simply to live free with the GOD of Nature, as a fuller expressed human nature being, and also IN the real life audience IN my flesh and blood world.

The darkness I perceive here, in your otherwise known now intelligently expressed words, only inspires my light, and whether or not you read a word of this ART that is another expression of me with GOD, is totally meaningless to me, if as such to you, as that is your will friend, and never mine, alone.

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/03/12/arthur-forest-dude-set-free-in-pan-of-action/


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,499
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

14 Mar 2015, 9:52 am

adifferentname wrote:
The first cause hypothesis, as posited by creationists, is specifically used in an attempt to prove that:

- A sentient being created the universe
- That sentient being is the one that the creationist believes in.
- Everything that exists was created by something else apart from the sentient being the creationist believes in.

There are numerous holes in this argument - some obvious ones being that a sentient being is an unnecessary component, and that there is no logical reason to assume that the law of causality is bound to our universe.

Equally obvious is that there is just as much evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a super-evolved millipede or a giant sack of horse manure caused the Universe to come into existence, either by chance or design, as there is for any other human invention (e.g. God).

My position, and that of other atheists, is that suspension of critical thinking is necessary to any positive claim that an omnipotent creator exists.

I can't take the assessment seriously that belief is something outdated, outmoded, now knows that it's wrong and needs to feel a mass upwelling of guilt for its existence in the face of an atheism preaches true certainty (while denying true certainty out the other side of its mouth as a cover). I disagree with the assertion for the same reason you highlighted - evidence and critical thinking.

Part of the landscape today - one's only allowed to interpret the results of double-slit/quantum erasor if they have a PhD or two in a scientific field, things like the effect of thought on random generators (global consciousness project as a great example) are considered 'not proven yet' and will have decades of people - just like the double-slit experiment - blaming methodology for the results, everything else is either 'anecdote' or it's pseudoscience, not pseudoscience based on broken or skewed methodology but classified as such because it's peer-reviewed among researchers in a field whose field is collectively labeled 'pseudoscience' for its outcomes. Somewhere along the line science left the science business and got really worried about politics and ontology - thus we have the confusion of two concepts because they go by the same name; science the method and Science the clerical institution.

As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to work with ceremonial magic or even practice neoshamanism in the park - it's fine, there's something to work with both at the neurological level (hacking your own brain) and there's also the idea that you're gaining a foothold on what one might be able to call the objective subjective, that funny place where thought flows over from purely being a thing of the mind (or whatever background radiation we might consider the collective unconscious) and starts having effect on a person and their environment in far more interesting ways. There's been a considerable push by society in the last couple centuries to throw consciousness out as a hallucination, I'd at least agree that libertarian free will is something of an artifact of information (ie. not accounting for your own inputs) but to the extent that consciousness has interface with our environments it means that it's an area, like learning languages or learning how to ride a bike, that should be part of human self-actualization and healthy living, whether by magic outright or by the desire to go to church or mosque and pray and/or receive communion, which really for Catholics is an edible talisman charged by the priest and the belief that the egregore of their institution and those in the pulpits confers on the priest to create such talismans. In Fremasonry and Rosicrucianism, Theosophy also, the environment we call the universe curates an evolutionary process not only of cells and bodies but also of consciousness - it's what makes reincarnation of consciousness and recycling of it a sensible hypothesis (a reductive materialist would say energy isn't created or destroyed, a yogi would simply add to that equation that information isn't destroyed either, to have both information and consciousness floating around out there and interacting means that one could view this as a chemical reaction and even chemical enrichment of sorts). That process is simply considered The Great Work, it's the universe doing something with what it's given us - ie. information and consciousness, it's work toward alchemy's magnum opus.

So no, I don't find the suggestion that reductive materialism and empiricism have utterly stomped out all meaningful inroads to a different ontology particularly cogent nor interesting or even intimidating. New-atheism/antitheism gets scary in its temper tantrums and sloppiness at times but that's it.

To use a term like pink unicorn, I don't have a problem with the concept of a pink unicorn, but a reductive materialist would mean it - correct me if I'm wrong - as an absurdity, and the same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's telling people 'If you don't agree with us you believe an absurdity' or, as you stated well above, they've 'suspended critical thinking'. I don't really care what other people do or whether they have any interest in the things I or other people like me do or like to look into and research, just when it comes down to the use of ignorance and bull-headed dogma as a weapon it's tempting to stick my foot out and it's been made even more tempting that it's right now charging my way. A person can be an expert in everything and to that extent I have sympathy for people not sharing my views, but it's tough to respect when people try to evangelize by brow-beating. Brow-beating isn't a tool of reason, it's a caustic form of hypnotic suggestion and it's usually employed by people who have a particularly egotistical grip on their views which is the point where someone's often so vested in what they believe that facts simply won't matter.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


sophisticated
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

14 Mar 2015, 10:23 am

More Atheist logic:

Image

And then the Iphone appeared:

Image



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Mar 2015, 10:59 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
appletheclown wrote:

If religion was abusive to children, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now. Get real.



Really, I think kids not committing suicide because they cannot bear the "shame" of being homosexual, or blowing themselves up in the name of allah would be a great start. Not to mention all the pregnancies caused by the idiotic celibacy vows

and as for this
:wall:


The technical term is thought reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Re ... f_Totalism

Lifton proposed 8 criteria and you can see every one of them in action in that movie... I did a 15 page analysis for my sociology 101 class. My professor said it was so good that she cried after reading it. :oops:

Still, the folks depicted in that movie are hardly your typical American Christians.

It is a good movie if you want to learn about the evangelical subculture though... In the finale they all go to see Ted Haggard (before he got caught snorting meth and blowing male prostitutes). :lol:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,100
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

14 Mar 2015, 12:14 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oh look out, what are you going to ask next "prove you are not a tree"?

For starters unless you want to bring in some postmodern a esoteric BS into the discussion I think the fact that we are discussing this in the manner we are is a good example of the contemporary technological world we live in. One that I contend would not exist without a means to separate what works and what does not at a level beyond basic observation.

Is this in reference to my question? It's not a satisfactory answer. How do you know that it "just works"? How do you know we're discussing this in any particular manner? There's nothing postmodern or esoteric about it. It's not recondite at all.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

14 Mar 2015, 1:15 pm

sophisticated wrote:
More Atheist logic:

Image

And then the Iphone appeared:

Image
Image


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 3:55 pm

appletheclown wrote:
Are you assuming we all send our kids to that place? You're stereotyping religious folks. Not all muslims are extremists either, nor are all Christians extremists, nor are all athiests Anti-theist like you.



No I am not, and if you had read my previous posts carefully you would see that I accuse Yecs and other theists who change and manipulate scientific knowledge as being guilty of child abuse, this as you rightly surmise, is a subset of theists.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 4:02 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Is this in reference to my question? It's not a satisfactory answer. How do you know that it "just works"? How do you know we're discussing this in any particular manner? There's nothing postmodern or esoteric about it. It's not recondite at all.


Like I said, here we go, "prove you're not a tree". :roll:


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,100
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

14 Mar 2015, 5:10 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Is this in reference to my question? It's not a satisfactory answer. How do you know that it "just works"? How do you know we're discussing this in any particular manner? There's nothing postmodern or esoteric about it. It's not recondite at all.


Like I said, here we go, "prove you're not a tree". :roll:

Again, avoiding the question. I'm not asking you to prove you're not a tree. I'm asking a question about how we know things. Claiming I'm asking you to prove you're not a tree is a shoddy straw man at best. That's not a tactic I'm used to seeing from you.

Or I could infer that you already know what I'm going to say, and you know it has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything. I mean, I have no idea either way, or any number of alternatives what your issue is, here. If you want to withdraw from this one, I'll understand. How do you know we're having this discussion at all? That's all that's being asked.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 8:37 pm

I am being flippant because I think question is one of those pointless philosophical ones which removes the immediate past and takes reality into the land of absurdity. I will say I know we are having this conversation using several well established laws of physics because I am using electronics devices connected by that all encompassing term "the internet". I strongly suspect you will come back with something akin to "how do you know your perception is accurate". If so please don't bother because I find discussions like this an absurdity hence why I lump them into a category I call "prove you are not a tree" . the act of sending and receiving information is tangible, it has artifacts which discern it existence in space and time. It is the reason many people have dash mounted cameras, essentially this records and recals the action in a far more reliable way than human memory.

Further to all this I can arrange for you to reply and in doing so I can predict future events.The ability to predict and repeat outcomes is is a mainstay of science. It is also a very appropriate way to understand the nature of reality.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Mar 2015, 8:48 pm

sophisticated wrote:
More Atheist logic:

Image

And then the Iphone appeared:

Image

Speaking of being flippant.....


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.